Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE

Airline Operations (Safety)

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the trend of safety of British airlines operations, and, in particular with the safety performance of United Kingdom airline operators in 1969; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Goronwy Roberts): We can never be satisfied while any element of risk remains, but I am glad to be able to say that the general trend towards improved safety in British airline operations is continuing and in 1969 no passengers were killed or seriously injured in British airline accidents.

Mr. Howarth: This is good news. Will my right hon. Friend say how the record compares with the record of foreign airline operators, particularly European operators?

Mr. Roberts: Because of different operating environments and wide variations in the types of operations undertaken and the lack of uniformity in the statistical coverage used by various countries, these comparisons are often of doubtful validity. Nevertheless, it would be fair to say that in both the independent and the nationalised sectors of the industry we have in the past few years improved our safety record and that that improvement is continuing.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Does the Minister think that any special action is now necessary in view of the concern at

London Airport with aircraft coming in to land where there have been one or two incidents recently with the possibility of an actual collision between aircraft, which could be a very serious thing?

Mr. Roberts: I agree that such an accident would be extremely serious. So far our worst fears have not been realised, but we are constantly watching the position. I explained to the House at some length on an earlier occasion the very full procedures we have for reporting and for examining the results of reports, with a view constantly to improving the provisions for safety.

Oral Answers to Questions — Company Liquidations

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give for Great Britain the annual increase in company liquidations between 1960 and 1964 and between 1965 and the latest available date, respectively.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Omitting voluntary liquidations by their members of mainly solvent companies, the number increased at an annual rate of 8 per cent. in each period.

Mr. Baker: Even leaving those out of account, would not the hon. Lady agree that the rate of company liquidations has doubled in the last five years of Socialism? Is not this an appalling indictment? Will the Labour Party consider reissuing its poster of the last General Election and, instead of it saying, " Let's go with Labour ", make it " Let's go bust with Labour "?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member must have had a rather highly coloured lunch. He is using some very exaggerated terms. It was precisely because the Government were concerned to see what was happening to small firms that they set up the inquiry. Until we get statistics which will give the information, we cannot draw such highly exaggerated conclusions.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade how the number of voluntary and compulsory liquidations of businesses for the first quarter of 1970 compares with the previous eight quarters; what estimate he now has of the effect of the credit squeeze


and interest rates on medium size and small businesses, by way of liquidations, closures, takeovers, and enforced mergers; what products; what regions of the country; and what type of businesses have been most affected.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: With permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Leaving aside voluntary liquidations by their members of mainly solvent companies, the figures after seasonal adjustment have recently been somewhat below the levels to which they rose last year. They do not provide any clear evidence as to the effect of the credit squeeze or of high interest rates.

Mr. Osborn: The hon. Lady is misleading in her reply. The number of liquidations has doubled in the last decade, and according to recent figures voluntary liquidations are very high for the first quarter of 1970, following high figures for compulsory liquidations during the fourth quarter of 1969. Is the hon. Lady not aware that her figures are misleading because they do not tell the whole tale? Many firms have had to go out of business but have avoided the official statistics.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman asks for information and then, when I give it, say that it is misleading. He is wrong. There was a rise in the number of liquidations after the passage of the Companies Act, 1967. This in many cases was due to the fact that the status of exempt private company was abolished and it was necessary to file accounts. We accept that there has been a rise


BUSINESS CLOSURES IN ENGLAND AND WALES


Numbers



Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement†
Compulsory
Company Liquidations Creditors' Voluntary*
Members' Voluntary*‡


1968
…
…
…
…
4,298
1,111
2,057
6,082


1969
…
…
…
…
4,769
1,181
2,329
4,829


Unadjusted


1968


1st quarter
…
…
1,231
308
590
1,787


2nd quarter
…
…
1,024
279
496
1,448


3rd quarter
…
…
932
149
438
1,285


4th quarter
…
…
1,111
375
533
1,562


1969


1st quarter
…
…
1,231
318
554
1,272


2nd quarter
…
…
1,095
308
563
1,404


3rd quarter
…
…
1,214
171
627
1,090


4th quarter
…
…
1,229
384
585
1,063


1970


1st quarter
…
…
1,310
316
663
1,146



in liquidations, but the hon. Gentleman should not use quite such highly coloured terms in this context.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: If the volume of liquidations is, as the Opposition allege, so high in private enterprise, does it not make the case for nationalisation and public ownership?

Mrs. Dunwoody: Whether the State takes over private companies by nationalisation or whether it assists them in any other way, it is essential that they should be viable units.

Mr. Ridley: During the last five years of the Tory Government there were 200 liquidations a year; in the last five years under the present Government there have been 900 a year. Does the hon. Lady still believe that her reply to the Question was not misleading?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do because, as the hon. Gentleman carefully refrained from saying, until very recently the growth in the number of companies was such that in many cases it kept pace with the liquidations. There have not been very many more liquidations overall when set against the number of new companies which have been created.

Mr. Barnett: Is this situation not a natural and understandable trend brought about, quite rightly, by the abolition of resale price maintenance?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is a pity that the Leader of the Opposition is not here to welcome this improvement in efficiency.

The following is the information:




Seasonally adjusted


1968


1st quarter
…
…
1,113
279
566
—


2nd quarter
…
…
1,043
279
502
—


3rd quarter
…
…
1,031
—
458
—


4th quarter
…
…
1,111
275
531
—


1969


1st quarter
…
…
1,102
290
531
—


2nd quarter
…
…
1,112
305
568
—


3rd quarter
…
…
1,331
—
650
—


4th quarter
…
…
1,224
266
580
—


1970


1st quarter
…
…
1,180
285
632
—


*Notified to the Board of Trade.


†The numbers of bankruptcies are of receiving orders made; about 20 per cent. relate to private individuals not engaged in business.


‡I Mainly liquidations of solvent companies.




BUSINESS CLOSURES IN SCOTLAND


Numbers




Company Liquidation




Sequestration
Compulsory Voluntary
Creditors' Voluntary
Members'Voluntary*


1968
…
…
…
…
104
35
100
395


1969
…
…
…
…
118
27
145
334


1968


1st quarter
…
…
…
25
8
23
132


2nd quarter

…
…
24
6
30
86


3rd quarter

…
…
33
9
26
82


4th quarter

…
…
22
12
21
95


1969


1st quarter
…
…
…
23
8
23
78


2nd quarter

…
…
37
6
31
91


3rd quarter

…
…
27
6
50
70


4th quarter

…
…
31
7
41
95


1970


1st quarter
…
…
…
30
16
33
71


*Mainly liquidations of solvent companies.




BUSINESS CLOSURES IN NORTHERN IRELAND


Numbers



Company Liquidation




Bankruptcies
Compulsory
Creditors' Voluntary
Members' Voluntary*


1968
…
…
…
…
47
—
23
45


1969
…
…
…
…
40
3
12
32


* Mainly liquidations of solvent companies.




INDUSTRIAL ANALYSIS FOR ENGLAND AND WALES




Company Liquidation 

Company Liquidation



Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement
Compulsory
Creditors Voluntary
Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement
Compulsory
Creditors Voluntary



1968
1969
1969
1969
1968
1969
1969
1969



Numbers
Percentages


Traders and self-employed


Farming etc.

…
…
…
174
240
16
33
4·3
5·2
1·4
1·4


Total Manufacturing



…
137
167
182
725
3·4
3·6
16·7
31·0


Food, drink and tobacco



…
9
4
6
18
0·2
0·1
0·6
0·8


Chemicals etc


…
…
1
1
4
17
—
—
0·3
0·7


Metals and engineering



…
33
33
79
329
0·9
0·7
7·4
14·0


Textiles and clothing



…
19
49
22
110
0·5
1·1
2·0
4·7


Timber, furniture etc



…
28
35
18
86
0·7
0·8
1·6
3·7


Paper, printing and publishing

…
…
…
21
21
30
69
0·5
0·4
2·8
3·0


Other manufacturing



…
26
24
23
96
0·6
0·5
2·0
4·1


Construction

…
…
…
849
996
295
355
20·9
21·9
24·0
15·3


Road haulage, taxis and hire cars
…
…
…
…
176
177
39
76
4·3
3·9
3·3
3·3









CompanyLiquidation

CompanyLiquidation



Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement
Compulsory
Creditors Voluntary
Bankruptcies and Deeds of Arrangement
Compulsory
Creditors Voluntary



1968
1969
1969
1969
1968
1969
1969
1969



Numbers
Percentages


Wholesaling:


Industrial and buildersmaterials, coal, grain etc.
110
84
65
47
2·7
1·8
5·3
2·0


Consumer goods
…
…
53
64
126
218
1·3
1·4
10·7
9·3


Food retailers

…
…
382
409
12
84
9·4
8·9
1·0
3·6


Non-food retailers

…
…
403
522
69
213
9·9
11·4
5·6
9·1


Financial, business and professional services

…
…
204
166
184
345
5·0
3·6
15·6
14·8


Hotels, restaurants etc


…
254
281
30
35
6·3
6·1
2·5
1·5


Garages
…
…
…
109
174
66
85
2·7
3·8
5·6
3·6


Other consumer services


…
144
127
68
43
3·5
2·8
5·8
1·8


All other businesses

…
…
45
24
29
70
1·1
0·5
2·5
3·3


Total
…
…
…
3,040
3,231
1,181
2,329
74·8
74·9
100
100


Employees, no occupation andunemployed

…
…
793
930
—
—
19·6
20·3
—
—


Directors and promoters ofcompanies
…
…
…
231
220
—
—
5·7
4·8
—
—


Total
…
…
…
4,064
4,581
1,181
2,329
100
100
100
100


There is no statistical information about smaller companies which are the subject of takeovers or mergers.


Some information about the regional distribution of bankruptcies is provided by the analysis of cases handled by different courts which is published in the Bankruptcy General Annual Report. A regional analysis of company liquidations is not available.


The industrial analysis given for England and Wales for 1968 and 1969 is only available tow calendar years.

Oral Answers to Questions — National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a cost-effectiveness study was undertaken by his Department into the siting of the National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) what examination he has made of the adequacy of the hotel accommodation for the National Exhibition Centre;

(2) what studies he initiated into the siting of the National Exhibition Centre in Birmingham.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): My Department made a thorough study over a prolonged period of all the factors concerned, including hotel accommodation, before I announced my decision to support the Birmingham proposals.

Mr. Baker: I specifically asked whether a cost-effectiveness study had been done.

I believe that no such study has been done. If one had been done, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Birmingham would probably have been the last site chosen and that it would have been much better to have selected an area to which customers would go, such as the edge of West London?

Mr. Mason: I think the steps taken by the Birmingham local authority and the chamber of commerce will prove that my decision has been right. Many of those who opposed the proposal have now decided to take exhibition facilities there. There is a definite shift taking place in the opinion of many members of the exhibiting fraternity which favours Birmingham.

Mr. Sheldon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the techniques of evaluation introduced by the present Government have led to a higher standard of quality of decision-making? Is it not a pity that those techniques were not used in such an important matter as this?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend will remember that at the outset, when we


took the decision allowing Birmingham the opportunity to make a study itself to find how its industry would react to a Birmingham national exhibition centre, there was no other positive proposal before the Government; none was forthcoming from London, certainly not with financial backing.

Hon. Members: There is now.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) and confirm that a cost-effectiveness study was not undertaken? If it was not undertaken, why not, in view of the time in which this could have been done and the amount of money and the consequences involved?

Mr. Mason: Because, first, I do not think that is necessary when no one is prepared financially to back a proposal anywhere else in the country. Second, the Birmingham proposal is backed by the experience of a remarkably good chamber of commerce which knows how to run exhibition centres. Third, industry is now prepared to go to what will be a major communications point in the heart of the country.

Mr. Julius Silverman: Is it possible to do a cost-effective calculation when there are so many imponderables about how many customers and so on would go to the centre? Within the limits, has the President of the Board of Trade made the best calculation possible, backed by the Birmingham City Council and Chamber of Commerce?

Mr. Mason: I am satisfied that I have. It would have been a hypothetical exercise to try to assess the views of those in the exhibiting fraternity, who hitherto have always wished to remain in the South.

Oral Answers to Questions — London—Tokyo Air Service (Trans-Siberian Route)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade how far the negotiation of a trans-Siberian service route from London to Tokyo depends on the granting of landing rights in Hong Kong to the Russian airline Aeroflot.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The Soviet Minister of Civil Aviation and my right

hon. Friend signed on 13th April a Protocol to the Air Services Agreement between the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R., giving B.O.A.C. rights on the trans-Siberian route to Tokyo. Aeroflot has not been granted landing rights in Hong Kong.

Mr. Fortescue: First, can the Minister say whether negotiations are proceeding so that there may be greater frequency on the trans-Siberian route if we grant rights in Hong Kong to Aeroflot? Secondly, to what extent are the views of the Hong Kong Government taken into account when bargaining with landing rights on the Colony for other purposes?

Mr. Roberts: There has been no question of granting landing rights in Hong Kong to the Russians. The views of the Hong Kong Government have always been sought in these matters: they will continue to be sought. As regards an increase in frequencies, the agreement provides immediate rights to operate two services a week in partnership between the two airlines on the route London—Moscow—Tokyo. Any further frequencies would mean new negotiations and a new agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions — British Air Services (B.E.A. Secondary Domestic Routes)

Mr. Fortescue: asked the President of the Board of Trade what report he has received from British European Airways on the possibility of its secondary domestic routes being taken over by British Air Services, as recommended by the Edwards Committee and endorsed by the recent White Paper on Civil Aviation Policy.

Mr. Onslow: asked the President of the Board of Trade what request he has made to British European Airways regarding a study of the effects of handing over the corporation's secondary domestic routes to British Air Services.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: B.E.A., at our request, is considering the possibilities and hopes to let me have its views in the summer.

Mr. Fortescue: Can the Minister give an undertaking that if these routes are handed over to British Air Services there will be no question of eliminating the


private shareholding in British Air Services?

Mr. Roberts: I know of no such intention. It is not the Government's aim to disturb the present structure in that sense. The aim is to create a new organisation which will be more viable.

Mr. Onslow: As British Air Services is not without its own problems at present, does the Minister think that it has the management capacity to take on this extra work?

Mr. Roberts: I am sure that it has. Domestic secondary services are a very difficult sector. B.E.A. and B.A.S., as well as other operators, have found it very difficult to make them viable.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Minister aware that if this happened the timekeeping on the domestic services could not be worse than it is? It could be considerably better.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman makes an unwarrantable assertion.

Oral Answers to Questions — Oil Pollution

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the failure to establish the source of recent oil pollution on the East Coast of Scotland, he is satisfied that existing procedures to identify offenders are satisfactory; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The detection of those responsible for polluting the sea with oil is far from satisfactory but, given the practical difficulties and the present law, I am satisfied that our existing procedures are the best that are realistically practicable. Last year's amendments to the international convention on oil pollution will help us to strengthen the law and improve enforcement. Legislation for this purpose is in preparation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling on the East Coast of Scotland that this problem is not being treated as urgently as it has been treated on the more populated South Coast of England? Would he agree that rapid identification of offenders is the best possible deterrent? It is no comfort to people in my area whose coasts are polluted to know that the

source of pollution has not so far been traced.

Mr. Roberts: Apart from his first statement, I find it very difficult to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that the problem on the East Coast of Scotland has been treated less urgently than in other parts of the country, including my own. I agree that. to a very great extent, it is a question of identification. Possibly the legislation which we have in mind will help in this matter.

Dr. Gray: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is similar concern on the East Coast of England, particularly in seaside resorts like Great Yarmouth? Would he consider instituting helicopter patrols in the summer so that oil slicks may be detected at an early stage?

Mr. Roberts: That is an attractive suggestion. It is a question of cost and cost-effectiveness. I do not rule out what my hon. Friend says. I shall look at his suggestion in relation to the coming summer, but I make no commitment. Many seaside resorts are rightly apprehensive about this kind of nuisance.

Oral Answers to Questions — Distributive and Service Industries (Fixed Capital Expenditure)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the annual average increase in the fixed capital expenditure, at 1963 prices, of the distributive and service industries between 1960 and 1964 and 1965 and 1969, respectively.

Mr. Speed: asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the annual average increase in the fixed capital expenditure of the distributive and service industries, at 1963 prices, from the beginning of 1966 to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Mason: The annual rate of increase for these industries (excluding shipping) was 9 per cent. between 1960 and 1964, 4 per cent. between 1965 and 1969, and, on the basis of seasonally adjusted figures, 6 per cent. between the first quarter of 1966 and the fourth quarter of 1969.

Mr. Shaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in terms of cash and of


percentages there is clearly shown to be a substantial slowing in the rate of progress in these capital developments?

Mr. Mason: I am not convinced that that is right. The underlying trend of investment in these industries has been strongly upward over the past 10 years. As the hon. Gentleman must know if he has followed the figures closely, there was a dip in 1965–66, a picking up in 1967, a strong surge forward in 1968, and the improvement is still going on.

Mr. Speed: Is it not odd that investment in the distributive and service industries is higher than it is in manufacturing industry, which attracts investment grants? Does this not call in doubt the whole philosophy of investment grants?

Mr. Mason: No. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology answered that question the other day because he deals with manufacturing investment. Investment in the distributive and service trades is higher than it is in manufacturing, but it is ridiculous to make comparisons. The total volume of investment in the five years 1965–69 was 28 per cent. above what it was in the previous five years.

Sir K. Joseph: If there is no reason for disquiet about the effectiveness of taxpayers' money spent on the so-called encouragement of manufacturing investment, why are the Government instituting an inquiry?

Mr. Mason: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology answered that question, too. Manufacturing investment is my right hon. Friend's responsibility. His Ministry is determining the terms of reference of the inquiry.

Oral Answers to Questions — Non-Tariff Trade Barriers

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will take the initiative to arrange a conference through the agency of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade.

Mr. Mason: The G.A.T.T. has been studying for some time the possibilities of reducing non-tariff barriers to international trade, and the contracting parties intend to consider at their next session a decision to initiate the appropriate action directed towards this end.

Mr. Blaker: Does that mean that the President of the Board of Trade rejects the view which has been ventilated in some quarters that such a conference should only take place after the end of our negotiations to join the Common Market?

Mr. Mason: The next session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to consider this problem will be in 1971. It has already set up two working parties on industrial and agricultural non-tariff barriers. The two committees will probably report in the summer. There is no reason why there should not be a G.A.T.T. session in 1971.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small Businesses (Statistical Returns)

Mr. Blaker: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number of different census and other forms required by his Department to be completed annually by small businesses employing less than 20, 50, 100 and 200 people, respectively.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody: Apart from the returns which companies are required to furnish under the Companies Act, 1967, there are two sets of statistical returns: one annually, and one for manufacturing firms quarterly; plus in the few appropriate cases monthly returns on air transport operations. Where possible, very small firms are exempted from the inquiries or are asked to complete only part of a form, and in many cases sampling methods are employed. Many small firms contribute voluntarily to statistical inquiries.

Mr. Blaker: Is the hon. Lady aware that the smaller the firm the more likely it is that these forms will have to be filled in by fairly senior executives who would be better employed in running the firm? Since it seems clear that this burden on small firms is increasing, would she say what action her right hon. Friend, as the Minister responsible for small businesses, is taking?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am perfectly well aware that in small firms a senior executive must often undertake the work of filling in the returns. But the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that all the questions and statistics we ask for


have been decided in conjunction with industry, and in many cases are of assistance not only to the small firms, but to the industries of which they are a part.

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will reduce the amount of official form-filling required of small businesses; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dun woody: The impact of official form-filling on small businesses is one of the subjects now being studied by the Committee of Inquiry on Small Firms appointed by my right hon. Friend the former President of the Board of Trade. The Government will wish to see its report before deciding what action, if any, is required.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Lady aware that up to 16 major returns a year have to be filled in by small businesses? Would she place copies in the Library of every form emanating from the Government which has to be filled in annually by businesses so that we can judge for ourselves whether the task is too onerous?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am always happy to add to the education of the hon. Member, if he wishes me to do so. But he is exaggerating wildly. There is a Survey Control Unit at the Central Statistical Office which examines all forms issued by Government Departments to eliminate duplication. If the number of forms he has given is correct, it is because the statistics are needed to assist not just the Government but also the industries concerned.

Mr. Barnett: Has my hon. Friend any estimate of how many extra forms and books of accounts will be needed by small businesses if a value-added tax is adopted here similar to that which exists in Europe at present?

Mrs. Dunwoody: We have not been able to do that, but since many small firms might be faced with even greater difficulties and with voluntary liquidations, it would be difficult to estimate accurately.

Oral Answers to Questions — Small Companies (Exports)

Mr. Speed: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order

to promote exports, he will seek to introduce a scheme to subsidise small companies wishing to establish overseas offices and warehouses.

Mr. Mason: The Group Export Representation Unit of the Board of Trade assists groups of small and medium-sized companies to develop exports. Financial assistance is given in selected cases towards the initial costs, including, experimentally, the setting up and operating of overseas offices and warehouses.

Mr. Speed: What is the future, then, of the Overseas Marketing Corporation? Is there not an unnecessary duplication between the Group Export Representation Unit and the O.M.C.? Does the right hon. Gentleman share the criticisms that Lord Brown made recently?

Mr. Mason: There is a Question on the Order Paper about the O.M.C., to which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will reply. With regard to G.E.R.U., I have indicated—because the hon. Gentleman's Question suggested that he did not know—that we are already assisting small firms. We are getting them together and assisting them with their marketing overseas, helping them to branch out in a way which would not be possible for them on their own. That is an entirely different operation to the O.M.C.

Mr. Ridley: Would the right hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that it is not the Government's intention to set up such a special corporation to subsidise exporting and warehousing of small firms independent of the existing arrangements?

Mr. Mason: As I said in my reply, part of our assistance to small firms is experimental, especially where we are helping them to set up offices and warehouses overseas. We are giving them 50 per cent. financial assistance to do so, but we hope that after they have received assistance for two years they will be able to stand on their own feet without financial assistance from the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — South Africa (Trade)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the President of the Board of Trade why British exports to South Africa increased in value by 91 per cent. in 1969, in view of the fact that those of the United States


of America increased by 11 per cent., those of West Germany by 18 per cent., those of France by 33 per cent., those of Japan by 63 per cent. and those of all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, other than Great Britain, by 21 per cent.; and what steps he proposes to take to recover for Great Britain her former share of South African imports.

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Member were to look at the South African statistics which give figures on a consistent basis he would find rather a different picture. They show a more favourable performance compared with other countries and that our share of the market has been maintained. I should like to see it increased, and the official services and B.N.E.C. are doing all they can to help our exporters.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It is good news to hear that the Minister wants to see the proportions increased, but if he studies the O.E.C.D. figures he will find that our share of the market has been declining. To what extent does he attribute this to the Government's refusal to sell submarines and other useful arms for the maintenance of internal law, and to what extent does he attribute it to the Government's refusal to allow British firms to act like their international competitors and conduct their trade with Rhodesia through South Africa?

Mr. Mason: If the hon. Gentleman peruses the figures closely he will see that up to 1968 our share of the market was declining. In 1968 and 1969 that decline halted. Our share of the market in both those years was 24 per cent.
As to the question of arms, we impose an embargo which does not seem to be affecting our commercial trade. We have no desire for an economic confrontation with South Africa. If the hon. Gentleman looks again at the table from which he took the figures in his Question, he will see that in 1969 we exported 702 million dollars-worth of goods to South Africa, and that the French, who supply arms to South Africa, exported 137 million dollars-worth.

Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House regard it as wholly undesirable that this trade with South Africa should

increase, that we do not wish to see this country involved in the economy of a country whose social situation has been condemned by the whole world, and that the fact that some of our commercial competitors behave in this anti-social international fashion is no justification for our doing so?

Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend will recognise that there are certain countries in the world with whose policies he would also disagree, and that if we stopped commercial trading with every country in the world with whose policy we disagreed it would not be long before we were bankrupt.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Yorkshire and Worcestershire are the two greatest cricketing counties in Britain?

Mr. Mason: I cannot see what that has to do with trade. Our arms embargo and our views on apartheid and racialism in sport have not stopped commercial development.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the satisfactory nature of the Minister's reply to his hon. Friend, I shall raise the matter again in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — Overseas Marketing Corporation

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the Government's intention to provide further loan capital for the Overseas Marketing Corporation when the corporation has taken up the £400,000 for which provision has already been made.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Overseas Marketing Corporation has made no request to the Government for any loans in excess of the originally-agreed limit of £400,000.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Lady aware that there appears to be a danger of over-provision here? If there is to be the G.E.R.U. scheme in operation, which will she back in view of the obvious discrepancy of opinion between Lord Brown and the rest of the Department about the right way to handle the matter?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman says, " I


am so glad that the Board of Trade provides so many services to our exporters that we are doing so well in so many fields." He must stop saying that as we are offering two sets of services we must be over-providing. We are doing nothing of the sort. The O.M.C. was an experiment to assist some smaller and medium-sized firms. The O.M.C. has found various opportunities which it is exploiting to the benefit of this country. I look forward to the day when the hon. Gentleman gives it the praise to which it is entitled.

Mr. Heller: Would my hon. Friend draw the Opposition's attitude to the attention of the companies involved, as it would appear that if by some mischance the Opposition became the Government they would stop assistance of this kind to exporters?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sure that the attitude of some Opposition Members has been carefully noted by exporters, who are working very hard in export markets. However, since the Opposition will not be the Government anyway, their attitude will not do any great harm.

Oral Answers to Questions — Malta Trade Fair

Sir A. V. Harvey: asked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain is not backing the Malta Trade Fair this year.

Mr. Wall: asked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain is not participating in the Malta Trade Fair in July.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: British goods will be displayed at the fair. There will, however, be no collective British participation supported by the Board of Trade as there has been no call this year for such support from British exporters.

Sir A. V. Harvey: How does the Minister account for the fact that 14 other countries are exhibiting there, even including Eastern European countries? Why do the Government have a built-in prejudice against Malta, rubbing salt into the wounds? If we are giving aid and grants on the one hand, we should get what trade we can with this small, loyal member of the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I must reject any suggestion of any kind of prejudice

against the island of Malta. The present Government have in particular undertaken to find assistance for the Maltese shipyards. There has not been Board of Trade support for our exporters at the fair since 1967. It is a question of people asking for us to assist them to go to particular markets, and they have not done so on this occasion.

Sir G. de Freitas: Will not the Government offer support even though it has not been demanded, not only to promote our own trade but also in view of the need to help Malta, this member of the Commonwealth and the Council of Europe, to develop herself as a trade centre for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I cannot offer to undertake services which people do not require. In exporting we must increasingly have a professional attitude. Industrialists themselves prefer to go to specialised trade fairs and not general fairs, of which the Malta Trade Fair is an example.

Oral Answers to Questions — Export Contracts(Buyer Credit Facilities)

Mr. Cant: asked the President of the Board of Trade what use has been made of the Export Credits Guarantee Department's buyer credit facilities announced in May, 1969.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: At the time of the announcement it was estimated that in 1969 export contracts supported by buyer credit facilities might amount to £100 million. In fact, the total reached £103 million relating to 14 contracts by the end of the year and now stands at £134 million.

Mr. Cant: Do those figures include lines of credit?

Mrs. Dunwoody: No, Sir. In addition to the figures I have given, 16 lines of credit have been guaranteed by E.C.G.D. over the same period, which covers lines of £102 million.

Mr. Grant: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable criticism of the export credit guarantee scheme, particularly about the bureaucratic delays in getting the guarantee, among our businessmen in the Far East? They say


that this puts them at a grave disadvantage compared with the quick procedure of the Japanese and Australians. Is the Minister considering this? What does she propose to do about it?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am not aware of any such criticism. If the hon. Gentleman would like to bring me evidence, I will certainly look at it. The department is run on purely commercial lines, and it has been remarkably successful over a period of years.

Oral Answers to Questions — Service Industries (Foreign Exchange Earnings)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will undertake an examination of the price elasticity of demand for the services provided by the hotel, insurance and banking industries and other service industries which earn substantial quantities of foreign exchange.

Mr. Mason: No, Sir.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a strong case for such an inquiry, which would throw light on the desirability of removing S.E.T. from these industries in order to increase their earnings of foreign currency?

Mr. Mason: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in his conclusion. If such an examination took place, I am sure that it would come down on the side of Professor Reddaway and say how efficient these industries have become since S.E.T. was imposed.

Mr. Ridley: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that discrimination is not only in terms of S.E.T. but also in terms of lack of availability of investment grant? Why does he wish to discriminate against these service industries in two respects despite the fact that they have done so well in helping the Government out?

Mr. Mason: I have consistently praised them for doing so well, but their success surely shows that S.E.T. is not as harmful as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — Distributive Trades (Investment)

Mr. Hall-Davis: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest

estimate of the trend of investment by the distributive trades in 1970.

Mr. Mason: No separate estimate is available for the distributive trades. For the distributive and service trades taken together, the results of the last investment intentions inquiry, published in January, indicated a small increase in volume compared with 1969.

Mr. Hall-Davis: Does not the trend of investment, taken alongside the reduction in numbers employed in the distributive trades, indicate that the main effect of S.E.T. has been to reduce the standard of service available to shoppers?

Mr. Mason: I do not accept that as true. The standard of service has increased because of the efficiency resulting from the imposition of S.E.T. The investment level rose by 12 per cent. in 1968 and a further 2 per cent. in 1969, and we expect a small increase in 1970.

Mr. Blaker: Where does the right hon. Gentleman get his evidence for the proposition he has enunciated, that the standard of service has improved?

Mr. Mason: As a member of the general public I can detect it as well as anyone else.

Sir K. Joseph: But does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that Professor Reddaway specifically excluded the question of service from that which is provable as a result of S.E.T. and suggested that the public had suffered in the quality of service since the imposition of S.E.T.?

Mr. Mason: I hone that the right hon. Gentleman will draw to my attention any facts showing that service has suffered. I am not aware of it.

Oral Answers to Questions — S/VTOL Aircraft Services

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what organisation he has now set up to promote city centre to city centre civil airline services in the United Kingdom, Europe and even farther afield using short takeoff and landing and vertical take-off and landing aircraft; and what evidence has been given to the Roskill Commission about this form of airline development.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: The first task is to evaluate the economic and operational aspects of services with aircraft


of these kinds and the Commission on the Third London Airport has been told that it will be informed of the result of studies now in hand on STOL systems. It is likely to be some years before aircraft of either sort are sufficiently developed for widespread commercial use.

Mr. Osborn: While I readily accept that it will be in the 1980s before anything materialises, there has been the Ministry of Technology's report on sites. Who will have the responsibility of developing airport sites and services? Will it be the civil airports authorities or the local authorities? Is it not possible that, if technological developments go apace, the third London Airport will be obsolete before it comes into service?

Mr. Roberts: The question of sites is part of a very wide-ranging area of study particularly in regard to the possibilities of STOL, in which my Department, the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Transport are engaged. As the hon. Gentleman knows, STOL shows a greater likelihood than VTOL of becoming commercially viable at the moment. I will bear the other point he mentioned in mind, but I do not feel I can give him an answer now.

Mr. Snow: Does not this question demonstrate how wise the Government were to give prompt financial aid to the Britten-Norman aircraft, the Islander, which is a feeder aircraft now much in use overseas, and which could be used far more in this country?

Mr. Roberts: I think that is so, and that my hon. Friend's view would command fairly general agreement.

Mr. Corfield: In view of the interdependence between development of aircraft and development of ground facilities, for which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible, can we look to him to set a rather brisker pace than the Minister of Technology is doing with regard to aircraft?

Mr. Roberts: I must say that I am flattered that anyone should think that I could set a brisker pace than my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology: I will do my best.

Oral Answers to Questions — Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules 1965

Mr. Costain: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many consultations he has had with the Trinity House Pilots on his proposal to amend the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules 1965 to give statutory effect to recommendations contained in Merchant Shipping Notice No. M.558 issued in June, 1969;

(2) why nine months have now elapsed since he undertook that a statutory instrument would shortly be laid amending the Merchant Shipping (Pilot Ladders) Rules 1965 to make compulsory the provision and firm securement of hand-hold stanchions in conjunction with bulwark ladders.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: Merchant Shipping Notice M.558 was issued after consultation with interested organisations. These consultations led us to believe that the amendment would be immediately acceptable.
However, when we sought the views of Trinity House Pilotage Service on the proposed amendment, it indicated substantial disagreement with it. These differences have been explored in subsequent meetings, and the board has undertaken to reconsider its attitude in consultation with others concerned such as the United Kingdom Chamber of Shipping. A further meeting with Trinity House and the pilots will be arranged as soon as these consultations have been completed.

Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate how unsatisfactory this is? One pilot has already lost his life because this matter has not been settled. Surely the Minister will agree that the pilots should give advice on their own safety? A television programme on this subject has been broadcast, and I have been forced to use the Ten-minute Rule Bill procedure to bring in a Private Member's Bill to get the Board of Trade to do something about this.

Mr. Roberts: It does not lie entirely either with the Board of Trade or with the pilots. Our object is to reconsider this decision, as I think the hon. Gentleman wishes us to do. For this purpose we must consult a fair range of interested


parties in the industry as a whole. Once that is done, we shall have immediate talks with Trinity House and the pilots.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that disagreement was expressed by the Chamber of Shipping on behalf of shipowners in general on the ground of cost, and is not it shocking that the pilots' lives should be in jeopardy because of minor expenditure on the provision of the necessary equipment?

Mr. Roberts: No. I can assure my right hon. Friend that the disagreement was not on cost; it was on technical points.

Oral Answers to Questions — Butter (Imports)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he decided to raise the quota for imported butter by 28,000 tons this year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the effect on home production of his decision to increase the quota of imported butter.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No effect is expected since estimated home production was taken fully into account before the import quota was fixed. The basis on which the quota was fixed was explained in the reply to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) on 15th April.—[Vol. 799, c. 246.]

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is not this discouraging for dairy farmers in their present difficulties, and does not it reflect the Government's lack of sympathy for the farmers?

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is quite wrong to suggest that the Government are not sympathetic to the farmers. They seem to me to bend over backwards to assist them. The 1970–71 quota is 28,000 tons higher than that for 1969–70, but it is still 37,000 tons less than in 1968–69 and well below the average for the last five years, which was 445,000 tons.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain how the Government can ever hope to gain the confidence of home agriculture when their exhortations to save imports are so manifestly superficial? Must we have this constant double-talk about agriculture?

Mrs. Dunwoody: If hon. Gentlemen opposite were more careful to give accurate information to the farmers in their constituencies there would be far less misunderstanding. If they also showed more interest in the consumers' point of view we might get a more balanced discussion in the House on the problems of agriculture.

Mr. Orme: Will my hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of these butter imports are coming from Common Market countries where there are large surpluses at high prices, and what effect this will have on the British economy?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not have that breakdown, but the butter stock level on 1st April was 79,000 tons, and in these circumstances to keep imports at last year's level would have kept consumers short of supplies.

Mr. Stodart: Short of increasing the consumption of butter in the British market, does not this increase make absolute nonsense of the repeated exhortation of the Government to save imports?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have explained more than once that the figures are still well below the average. We must also concern ourselves with the interests of the housewife. The hon. Gentleman is very vocal about the farmers; I would like to hear him being equally vocal about the consumers.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the President of the Board of Trade why he has decided to leave the £100,000 butter quota for China unchanged.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This small quota, which has remained unchanged for 12 years, exists for different reasons from the general butter quotas, and we saw no reason to extend to it the increases my right hon. Friend announced in them on 23rd March.—[Vol. 798, c. 294.]

Mr. Wingfield Digby: I appreciate the importance of consumer choice, but is it necessary to continue this quota? Is not France sending a lot of butter to China?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Member will accept, I am sure, that I am not, happily, responsible for exports from


France. This quota is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. of our total butter imports. Our trade with China has been expanding at a considerable rate, since in 1969 we exported £51·8 million and we imported only £37·7 million.

Oral Answers to Questions — Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to receive the report of the inspectors appointed to investigate the affairs of Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals (Bletchley) Limited.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The report of the inspectors was received on 27th April. When it has been considered, I will write to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May we expect a brisk pace from the companies department of the Board of Trade on this matter? Is not it some years since this scandal was exposed very bravely by the Sunday Times? May we be assured that at long last action will be taken?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The first investigatory action by the Board of Trade was on 13th January, 1969. I will take note of the hon. and learned Gentleman's injunctions to move speedily. People do not normally call me a slow mover.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Sunday Times has been mentioned, but the Sunday Times, the Sunday Telegraph, the Daily Telegraph and other newspapers have been reporting to the Board of Trade for years past the activities of Dollar Land Holdings, which never issues company reports and which has completely evaded the Companies Acts. Why does not the Minister take action about this scandal?

Mrs. Duuwoody: The hon. Member has discussed this case with me and with shareholders in the company. The powers of the Board of Trade to take action are clearly defined. When we have evidence we take action, as the case mentioned in the Question has demonstrated.

Oral Answers to Questions — Dunlop Company Limited (Canadian Factory)

Mr. Newens: asked the President of the Board of Trade what effects the

decision of the Dunlop Company Limited to close its factory in Ontario, Canada, will have on Anglo-Canadian trade.

Mr. Mason: I do not expect any significant effects.

Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend say whether his Department was informed of the proposal to close the factory at Toronto, where it has understandably provoked a storm of protest? What powers has he to prevent the transfer of operations and markets from British factories to foreign subsidiaries, following the Dunlop-Pirelli merger?

Mr. Mason: The Canadian company discussed this with the Canadian authorities but there was no necessity to do so with my Department. This decision has nothing whatever to do with the Dunlop-Pirelli merger. I gather that the Canadian company took this decision because, with increasing competition from Europe and Japan and increasing costs at home, it could not ensure long-term viability.

Oral Answers to Questions — Calcium Ammonium Nitrate

Mr. James Davidson: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he has concluded his investigations into the alleged dumping of calcium ammonium nitrate originating in the Federal Republic of Germany; and if he will now make a statement;

(2) by what amount the wholesale price of calcium ammonium nitrate on the West German home market exceeds that of the same product allegedly clumped at United Kingdom ports.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The provisional anti-dumping charge of £9 per ton indicates our provisional estimate of the difference between West German domestic prices and its export prices to the United Kingdom. The precise difference will be determined as part of the full investigation of the anti-dumping application which we hope to complete during the next month.

Mr. Davidson: Is it fair to say that the anti-dumping duty was imposed both hastily and unfairly by the Government? The timing was extremely bad, and many small firms, as a result, have been forced to default on their contracts or accept severe losses. This has had a very bad


effect on the agricultural industry and on small firms in rural areas.
If I may ask a supplementary question on my second Question, is the Minister aware that one of the applicants for the imposition of this anti-dumping duty recently refused an order by a merchant in the North-East of Scotland for 3,000 tons of nitrate fertiliser and yet shortly afterwards applied for the imposition of an anti-dumping duty?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman has a very interesting line of reasoning He says that when the Board of Trade takes action against dumped goods which causes inconvenience to farmers, it is acting totally against the interests of agriculture, but, when it suits him, he talks about " dumped " agricultural products. He cannot have it both ways. Dumping is dealt with in the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, and the same criteria apply to industrial goods and to agricultural produce.

Mr. Paget: Why not? Is it really necessary to protect the I.C.I. against European competition? Why should we refuse—by calling it dumping—a very pleasant present from the West Germans which is of value to our agriculture?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I simply cannot accept that reasoning. Presents that are brought in at unfair trading prices in the long run do not assist our industries. We are not protecting the large companies but simply making sure that trading conditions are honest and fair.

Oral Answers to Questions — British United Airways

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to the sale of British United Airways to the British Overseas Airways Corporation or other possible buyers.

Mr. Mason: Baring Brothers, who are acting for B.U.A., issued a prospectus on 23rd April and have asked for bids to be made within 28 days.

Mr. Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend say whether he regards all those who are reported as bidding for B.U.A. as being suitable and capable of creating a second force independent airline, as envisaged by the Edwards Committee?

Mr. Mason: I do not think that at this stage it would be right for me to single out one from the other. So far Caledonian, Laker Airways and Mr. Alan Bristow are interested in making bids.

Mr. Corfield: In view of the Minister's own expressed wish that a merger between Caledonian and B.U.A. may emerge and the fact that Baring Brothers' offer appears designed to discourage a merger between B.U.A. and Caledonian, will he bear that fact in mind if he is asked to approve a B.O.A.C. take-over?

Mr. Mason: Certainly I will. I feel —this is a personal view—that if B.U.A. merges with Caledonian it would be a sensible merger, but it is now a commercial transaction and it is up to B.U.A. to reach its own decision. If there are difficulties, the B.O.A.C. bid is on ice. It has not been rejected.

Oral Answers to Questions — B.O.A.C. (Freight Charges)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the President of the Board of Trade why his regulations provide that a charge of £3 8s. should be made by British Overseas Airways Corporation for clearance and delivery to New Malden from Heathrow Airport of a small parcel worth a few shillings, particulars of which have been sent to him.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: With the approval of the Board of Trade, common charges for clearing freight at Heathrow are agreed between the various airlines concerned. The costs are not, of course, proportional to the value or size of the consignments, and I have no evidence that the charges are not closely related to the overall costs. I have written to the right hon. Member about the specific case.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his helpful personal intervention in this matter, may I ask whether he does not accept that it was ridiculous that a small parcel of this kind, which cost 5s. to send 11,000 miles from Sydney to Heathrow, should cost £3 8s. for the purpose of covering a distance of 10 miles between Heathrow and New Malden?

Mr. Roberts: The amount the right hon. Gentleman mentions is not in discharge of the cost of moving the parcel from Heathrow to New Malden it is in


relation to the costs of clearance, customs, transit registry, and so on, at Heathrow. These costs can be very high for small-value parcels. I would have thought that the real centre of this problem is that anybody proposing to send a small-value parcel over that distance, or indeed any distance at all, should inquire first how best to send it in relation to its value. If in this case or similar cases this had been sent by normal post it would have got there almost as quickly and far more cheaply.

Oral Answers to Questions — East and Central Africa, Botswana and Swaziland

Mr. Judd: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he will call a round-table conference of all concerned to consider the possibility of expanding British trade with, and investment in, East and Central Africa, Botswana and Swaziland;

(2) what is the total number of Government personnel exclusively concerned with promoting trade with, and investment in, East and Central Africa, Botswana and Swaziland.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Twenty-five of the staff of our diplomatic posts in these countries are exclusively concerned with promoting trade, in addition to a number of officials both in London and on the spot part of whose time is devoted to this purpose. Our trade with these countries has been increasing satisfactorily with the support of the Government export services and B.N.E.C. I do not think that a round-table conference is necessary.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply and agreeing that there has been a welcome improvement in our trade with these areas, may I ask her whether she would not agree that too many new opportunities are still being missed, with the Italians and Japanese too frequently taking a lead? Will she do everything possible to ensure that we expand our trade and investment in these areas and, particularly in view of the British communities dependent on trade with Southern Africa, would she not agree that these trends are even more important in the future because of political instability in the Republic of South Africa itself?

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope that British companies will take every opportunity to extend their trade with Eastern and Central Africa. It is encouraging that our exports to these countries rose from £72 million in 1964 to £134 million in 1969, an increase of 84 per cent. I am sure that our businessmen will take every opportunity to increase this flow.

Mr. James Johnson: Is my hon. Friend aware that despite political misunderstandings over Mr. Smith and South Africa, our High Commissions are doing a wonderful job in increasing our trade with these territories? If the Minister were able to visit these areas, as I have recently done, she would find the utmost good will among Ministers there who desire to extend trade with us.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I should be delighted to visit East Africa, but I would have to ask my right hon. Friend's permission. I think that British goods are some of the best in the world. If we offer what the customer wants and can supply on time, we have every opportunity of doing a good amount of trade with East Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — Brewery Companies (Political Contributions)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of those brewery companies which have contributed to political organisations since the Company Act, 1967 came into effect; and indicate the amount subscribed in each case.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am publishing in the OFFICIAL REPORT this information in respect of brewery companies with net assets exceeding £500,000 or profits exceeding £50,000.

Mr. Hamilton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that Mr. Andrew Roth's latest edition of the Business Interests of Members of Parliament shows that at least 16 Tory Members of Parliament are either chairmen or directors of breweries? Does he not think that there is something sinister about the use of shareholders' money for party political purposes? Can he say how much of this money has gone to the Labour Party?

Mr. Mason: It is quite likely that Conservative Members of Parliament


have played their part. The figures will show that in 1968 breweries gave £98,358. Apart from some hundreds of £s to Aims for Industry, Common Cause, the Economic League, etc., it went to the Tory Party.

Sir G. Nabarro: While declaring at once that I have no interest directly or indirectly in any brewery company as a non-bibulous character in beer, might I ask the Minister whether he is not departing from normal parliamentary practice in publishing the affairs of private companies—

Hon. Members: Public companies.

Sir G. Nabarro: —private companies and public companies, and whether he would not be more comprehensive in his publications by relating contributions to Labour Party funds by all trade unions, particularly sums contributed during this General Election year?

Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is out of date. Trade unions have always released information about their contributions to the Labour Party. They have always been honest.

Sir G. Nabarro: So have the breweries.

Mr. Mason: Furthermore, the trade unionists have a chance to contract out if they so wish, in contrast to shareholders in private companies. Section 19 of the Companies Act, 1967, requires a company to show in its directors' report information about the political contributions made in the year covered by the report. Because of the Act companies must now come clean. These figures are public knowledge. We are just tabulating them for the information of the House.

Mr. Corfield: But the Minister knows very well that many political contributions made by trade unions come out of the general fund. [HoN. MEMBERS: " No."] I am willing to substantiate that with evidence. They can be made and do not have to be disclosed. The A.E.U., for example, contributes to the Labour Party Research Fund. If that is not a party political organisation, I do not know what is.

Mr. Mason: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is getting worked up because we are revealing the figures of what the Tory Party is really receiving. It is

public knowledge that sums of any substance given by trade unions to the Labour Party have always been published.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the analogy given by the Opposition is entirely unfair? In this case the consumer is contributing to Tory Party funds, because every time I drink a pint of beer I have to contribute to the Tory Party.

Mr. Mason: That is very interesting. No doubt my hon. Friend, who comes from the south, enjoys Watney Mann's beer. That company has been a main contributor to the Tory Party with £25,000 a year.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Minister aware that at successive General Elections the Co-operative Society has heavily subsidised my opponent in my constituency? Will he persuade that society that it is throwing good money after bad?

Mr. Mason: It sounds to me to be a jolly good investment. Let us hope it pays off soon.

Later

Mr. Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An allegation has been made from the Front Bench opposite that trade union general funds are used for political purposes—

Mr. Heifer: It is untrue.

Mr. Spriggs: May I point out to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House—

Mr. Heifer: It is a lie.

Mr. Spriggs: —that this allegation is completely untrue?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The practice is growing of raising points of argument as points of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just ruled that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Then, on another point of order. Is it not a fact that if an hon. Member of this House deliberately accuses someone of knowingly breaking a law, that is a serious offence?


The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) has said that the trade unions are breaking the law. May I remind him that they are not allowed by law to contribute from their general funds to any political party, and no trade union has done it or does it? Should not the hon. Gentleman withdraw, because he is accusing the trade unions of breaking the law?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Mr. Corfield: Further to that point of order. As I have been referred to by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), perhaps I might be allowed to make it clear that I was accusing hon. Gentlemen opposite of not knowing the law, not of being outside it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a lot of work ahead.

Following is the information:


POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY BREWERY COMPANIES AS DISCLOSED IN RETURNS FILED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES.



1968
1969



£
£


Arthur Guinness, Son &amp; Co. Ltd.
16,700
16,500


Associated British Maltsters
1,000
531


Boddingtons Breweries Ltd.
625
625


Cameron (J.W.) &amp; Co. Ltd.
705
705


Higsons Brewery Ltd.
Nil
124


Home Brewery Co. Ltd.
1,500
Nil


Hull Brewery Co. Ltd.
70
77


Mansfield Brewery Co. Ltd.
250
NA


Morland &amp; Co. Ltd.
50
100


Brickwoods Ltd.
2,076
NA


Brown (Matthew) &amp; Co. Ltd
Nil
160


Marston, Thompson &amp; Evershed Ltd 
200
NA


Greene, King &amp; Sons Ltd.
50
50


Shipstone (James) &amp; Sons Ltd
250
NA


Scottish &amp; Newcastle Breweries Ltd.
3,906
8,006


Vaux &amp; Associated Breweries Ltd 
1,323
1,110


Truman Hanbury Buxton &amp; Co. Ltd
250
NA


Webster (Samuel) &amp; Sons Ltd
100
NA


Whithread &amp; Co. Ltd.
21,100
NA


Fuller, Smith &amp; Turner Ltd.
655
NA


Thwaites (Daniel) &amp; Co. Ltd
820
NA


Tollemache &amp; Cobbold Breweries Ltd.
10
286


Watney Mann Ltd.
24,750
25,000


Greenall, Whitley &amp; Co. Ltd
1,450
35






1968
1969



£
£


Davenport's C. B. &amp; Brewery (Holdings) Ltd.
283
183


Wolverhampton &amp; Dudley Breweries Ltd.
97
68


Smiths (John) Tadcaster Brewery Co. Ltd.
344
226


Eldridge, Pope &amp; Co. Ltd.
11
45


Bass-Charrington Ltd.
450
67


Courage Barclay &amp; Simonds Ltd.
16,415
NA


McMullen &amp; Sons Ltd.
100
104


Hardy's Kimberley Brewery Ltd
525
NA


Allied Breweries Ltd.
2,187
1,177


Devenish (J.A.) &amp; Co. Ltd.
71
66


Hall &amp; Woodhouse Ltd.
35
NA



98,358
55,245

NA= Not available as no report has yet been field with the Register of Companies for 1969.

A contribution is assigned to 1968 if made in the financial year of a company which ended in the period 6th April, 1968 to 5th April, 1969.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you will be aware that, since the latest Ministerial rearrangement, Questions to the Board of Trade cover a very wide range of subjects. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that we seem to have covered fewer than half the number on the list today. The number of Questions that we get through becomes smaller all the time. May I ask whether you are satisfied with the rate of progress which has been achieved today?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker is rarely satisfied with the number of Questions reached, for the reason that he has often stated. I am concerned about the hon. Member who puts down his Question for Oral Answer three weeks ahead only to find that it is not reached. Some Questions and Answers were long today. Long Questions and long Answers mean fewer Questions and fewer Answers.

Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. You will be aware that Question No. 36 was not reached. I knew that the answer was that more than £150,000 was contributed by banks to the Tory Party, and I wished to have it on the record.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have a sneaking idea that, if the hon. Gentleman knew


the answer, he need not have put down the Question.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Knowing that you are as anxious to speed up Questions as back bench hon. Members are, do you consider it helpful if Questions which obviously will not be reached, like Nos. 51 and 52 today, have to be taken with earlier Questions? If they are beyond the normal limit of Questions, it is important that they take their rightful position instead of being brought forward.

Mr. Speaker: I do not propose to take late-numbered Questions, for the reason that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. The problem sometimes is to judge what is a late number. Sometimes, on the very first day, as many as 65 Questions have been tabled.

Mr. Paget: When we get through very few Questions, is not the simple answer that the Questions are interesting and that a lot of hon. Members want to contribute supplementaries? On the whole, is not that a good thing?

Mr. Speaker: There is a lot in what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It is a matter of balance between the two factors mentioned today.

BILL PRESENTED

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Mrs. Secretary Castle, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Crossman, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Roy Mason, Mr. Secretary Thomas, and Mr. Harold Walker, presented a Bill to make provision with respect to the establishment and functions of a Commission on Industrial Relations as a statutory body; to amend the law relating to employers and workers and, in particular, the law relating to trade unions, employers' associations and wages councils and to trade disputes, the law relating to the Industrial Court and industrial tribunals, and the law relating to friendly societies in relation to membership of a trade union; and for purposes connected with those matters: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 164.]

TEN-MINUTE RULE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Mr. Berry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. According to the Order Paper, at this point I should be called to ask leave to bring in a Bill. Can you tell me why I have not been called?

Mr. Speaker: This is an important point of order. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's disappointment at not being able to introduce his Bill under the Ten-Minute Rule. However, we passed a Business Resolution yesterday, and it included the following:
 2(d) Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in bills …) shall not apply.
The Business Resolution deals with that.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Mr. Boyd-Carpenterrose—

Mr. Berry: Mr. Berry rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. An even worse offence than raising bogus points of order is arguing with the Chair when he has stated what is a simple rule of order.

Mr. Berry: I am grateful for your explanation, Sir, which naturally I accept. However, it is ironical that an attempt to change the 1968 Act, which was itself heavily guillotined, should now be barred in 1970 by a guillotine Motion on another piece of legislation affecting transport.
For the future, might it not be possible to alter the rules so that, when this happens, an extra 10 or 15 minutes is added at the end of the day to ensure that neither the time for debating the Bill is altered, nor is there any deprivation of back benchers' rights?

Mr. Speaker: I express my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman. This was a matter for the Business Committee on the Ports Bill, which expressly included this very point in the Resolution.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order. I hope that you will acquit me of any attempt to argue with any Ruling which you give, Mr. Speaker. To my knowledge, I have never done it, and I hope that I never shall.
I was rising to ask whether, under the procedure which you have explained to us,


any machinery is provided for the protection of a back bench Member by way of giving him an alternative day on which to move his Motion where the decision of the Business Committee and the House in authorising it has deprived him of what appear to be his rights?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He raises two points. On the first, any furture Business Committee might bear in mind the very point that we are looking at at the moment. If an hon. Member loses an Adjournment debate through no fault of his own, the Chair is usually able to take care of that in the foreseeable future.
As present, I understand that all the Ten-Minute Rule days are pre-empted until about 30th December of this year, so that it will be impossible to fit in the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) unless one happens to become vacant. He must take his chance.

Mr. Maudling: While I accept your Ruling, Sir, it seems that my hon. Friend has a cause for grievance. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House to take notice of this and see that it is considered?

The Lord President of the Council and Leaer of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): It would be wrong for me to question Mr. Speaker's Ruling, but he said that this is a matter which we should consider if it ever arose again. I will certainly look at this sympathetically.

Orders of the Day — PORTS BILL

[SECOND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 33

PROVISION FOR VESTING PORT BUSINESSES IN NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

3.40 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 47, line 32, after first order ', insert:
' in respect of a business about which he has power to make such an order '.

Mr. Speaker: I have suggested that with this Amendment we take Government Amendment No. 63.

Mr. Malley: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to take these two Amendments together.
The purpose of the Amendments is to make it quite clear that Clause 33(1) does not give the Minister any power to decide whether or not he has the powers to make a vesting order.
This matter was considered at some length in Committee. I am advised that the original wording would still have made it possible for a Minister to be questioned on this matter, but I thought it right to get it clear. If the Amendments are accepted the only criterion which will make it possible for the Minister to decide not to make an order, once an application has been made for an order which he has power to make, will be where the business is one which in his opinion may, and should, be expected on the ground that a valid objection has been made under Clause 35(3).
As the Amendments meet the point raised in Committee, I hope that they will be acceptable.

Mr. Anthony Berry: I am not entirely happy about the Amendments. We had a most important and helpful debate in Committee on these points, but I am still wondering whether


the Minister has reworded the subsection in the right way.
The Amendments which I moved in Committee were not quite acceptable to the Minister. However, there is an important point here which came out as the debate proceeded. The Minister has complete discretion. Therefore, an important principle is involved. The words
 unless it appears to him 
are still in the part which the Minister has not sought to amend. I am concerned whether the Minister really thinks that those words are strictly necessary, because he is given tremendous powers. I therefore wonder whether the decision that the Minister makes could be challenged in law.
The Minister will recall that there were certain legal arguments in Committee which I left to him, with his legal knowledge, and to one or two of my hon. Friends who share that knowledge. I hoped that the Minister would take out the words
 unless it appears to him 
or, if he really felt that they were essential, that he would give us a little more explanation as to their absolute necessity in this connection.

Mr. Mulley: I have taken further advice since we discussed this matter in Committee. The original words, without amendment, would still not have the effect of the Minister's decision not being challengeable in a court. It is not necessary or desirable to take out the words to which the hon. Gentleman is now taking objection. These Amendments make the matter clearer. I do not know how much further we can go.
The real point was whether the Minister's powers were such that they could not be challenged in the courts. I am advised that it is now clear with these Amendments that the decision can be challenged. Therefore, I think that meets the point about which the Opposition were concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: On a purely technical point, I shall have to vary the wording of Amendment No. 62. Instead of " after first order ', insert " it will read " after second ' order ', insert ", because we have just inserted some further words.

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 47, line 32, after second ' order ', insert:
(provided that such vesting does not give the Authority exclusive rights to provide port services within the specified harbour to the generality of users).
I attempted to move this Amendment in Committee. I had made what I thought was a powerful and effective speech in support of it when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), being a little confused as to what I was talking about, quite rightly interrupted me to question whether I had put these words down in the right place. On examination—understandably, the Government were not slow to seize on the point—our distinguished Chairman rightly ruled that I had put the Amendment in the wrong place. It was therefore promptly deselected, or whatever is the parliamentary phrase for that.

Mr. John Ellis: Shot down.

Mr. Berry: I confess that at that moment my friendly feelings towards my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam were rather less than my friendly feelings towards others of my hon. Friends. But there is always a happy end to most things. I should not have had an opportunity of moving the Amendment in the same wording had I not been deselected, or shot down, depending on which side of the House one is sitting.
It is important to ensure that the National Ports Authority does not have a monopoly. My hon. Friends and I see no reason why private enterprise should not have an opportunity of competing in the provision of port services with the authority. If the Amendment is accepted, that would be allowed.
In Committee, I quoted from the Second Reading speech of the Minister. I think that it is important to repeat that quotation today, because it affects the basis of my argument. The right hon. Gentleman said:
 But the clear underlying aim of Part 11 of the Bill is that the N.P.A., acting through port boards, should become the principal operator of port facilities and should be the principal employer of the port transport workers at its harbours."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1969; Vol. 793, c. 1578.]


The important word is " principal ". The Amendment alternatively suggests that the Authority should not have " exclusive rights ". The Minister's use of the word " principal ", I suggest again, as I did in Committee, implies that there must be some other category. The definition of " principal " in the dictionary is " chief in importance ". The word " chief " alternatively implies that it is the most important or the leading of whatever category is being referred to.
It therefore makes clear that there is a lesser category as well. It is clear that when the Minister used that word on Second Reading he was implying that there would be an alternative operator as well as the N.P.A. As it stands, the Clause does not allow for any such alternative.
We are dealing purely with the authority itself. We believe that our choice of words would allow private enterprise the right to compete with the authority, and judging by what the right hon. Gentleman said during his Second Reading Speech I think that that would be acceptable to him. It is vitally important during this debate, our first major debate on Part. II of the Bill, which deals with the taking over of the port businesses, as opposed to harbours which we discussed yesterday, to make quite clear just what type of organisation we are setting up to run port businesses.
The Government often pay lip-service to the work of the Monopolies Commission. Legislation is going through the House to make alterations to the work of the Monopolies Commission, but the Government nevertheless take the view that there should be some form of commission to ensure that monopolies do not play too big a part in our business life. It seems odd that at the same time as the Government are taking that action they should seek to re-establish what I fear is always at the back of their mind, namely, the fundamental belief that the State knows best and that it should run everything.
I have had time to think further about this since the Committee stage, and perhaps I might tell the House what I see as the advantage of making the Amendment. I ask the House to compare the position of owners of coastal ships and those of ships coming from the other side of the world. if a ship coming from

Australia loses a day or two on one part of the journey, it is often possible to make up that time and also any loss that is incurred before it arrives at its destination. If, however, a coaster on a trip lasting two or three days loses a day, that can be a major financial disaster for the owner.
Margins of profit are very small, and it is essential for efficiency to be high. In their interests, it is essential that when these ships get to port they should have some choice of the business to which they go to have their cargoes discharged. The Amendment will be very much to the advantage of the small trader, and I hope that the Government have not forgotten him in the overall embracing effect of the Bill.
This is a helpful Amendment, but because of what happened the Government were not able to comment on it in Committee. I had hoped that the Minister was about to accept it. He, too, has had time to think about the matter, and I hope that in the interests of the people who will use these port businesses he will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I wish to make only a short speech in support of this excellent Amendment. I understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) has moved it. In Committee, we pleaded for flexibility in the take-over businesses. What we are frightened of is that in their desire to rationalise the port businesses the Government will create a monopoly.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that this does not matter so much to oceangoing ships, but that it does matter where there should be a quick turnround and where a certain amount of competition is necessary. We are afraid that there will be a monopoly right, and it is, therefore, important to have more competition in the port business by creating flexibility.
I can understand the Government's desire to rationalise some businesses, but I ask them to consider seriously the point made by my hon. Friend because I fear that in their desire to rationalise they will do away with flexibility and competition. There must be competition amongst the port businesses if costs are not to rise, and one thing about which we are frightened is that this nationalisation Measure, as so many others have done,


will lead to rising costs. We hope that the Minister will safeguard the position by creating flexibility and allowing competition as suggested by the Amendment.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Members for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) are urging the House to accept the Amendment on a false premise. I do not think that it is the Government's intention to advocate the omnipotence of the State—I imagine that thought is furthest of all frcm our minds—but it can be said with truth that it is the duty and the right of the State to urge that there should be efficiency in all its undertakings, and, where there has not been efficiency, to try to institute a system whereby things can be improved. We can never say that there has been a great deal of efficiency in our docks. On the contrary, there has been a great deal of inefficiency, and it is high time that the Government tried to put the record right and improve matters.
It is not the Government's desire to squeeze small people out and establish an omnipotent National Ports Authority. That is not what we are trying to do. We are trying to be reasonable, fair, and efficient. In the past too many inefficient people have participated in the vital work at our ports. For instance, at Liverpool from time immemorial there have been as many as 200 stevedoring authorities engaging labour, and this has led to tremendous overlapping, inefficiency and injustice.
Nor can it be said that these stevedoring authorities established their right to participate in this important industry on which the country depends to such a large extent by having at their disposal all the tools of the job. For a long time they did not, nor did they endeavour to come by the means of increasing efficiency, and this is a matter of great regret. I agree that some of the stevedoring authorities undoubtedly proved their worth. Some were worth their weight in gold, but they were few in number. Generally, they were people who operated as stevedores, but who did not possess the tools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address what he is saying, which is of interest, to the Amendment,

which seeks to debar the National Ports Authority from exclusive rights of providing port services.

Mr. Mahon: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is the point to which I am trying to speak, because I feel that the authority must install itself as an authority within the meaning of the word, and have authority to carry on this important job.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Since 1967, there has been a great reduction in the number of stevedores to way below the figure which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Could he explain why there has been a grave worsening in industrial relationships in the docks?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Mahon: That may be so. I am inclined to be charitable to the hon. Gentleman's view. But from time immemorial there has been nothing but inefficiency. It is asking a lot to expect efficiency to come overnight with the new system. That is impossible.
Under the new system, with a National Ports Authority, there will be efficiency in greater measure. To a large extent, the people who comprise the N.P.A. will be the same stevedoring people who have always participated in the work in the docks, and they will do their best to increase efficiency. I do not think that there is any great principle involved in the Amendment.

Mr. David Waddington: I am always glad to follow in debate the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). I listen to his words with the greatest interest.
At one point, the hon. Gentleman seemed almost to be equating monopoly with efficiency. Not many hon. Members on this side of the House would agree that there is any evidence to support the thesis that a monopoly is more likely to create efficiency than a non-monopoly. At another point, the hon. Gentleman, much to my surprise, said that it was not the Government's object to squeeze out people and to create an omnipotent National Ports Authority. I should have thought that that was precisely what the Bill was intended to do. It is the Government's object to squeeze out small operators in the ports and to create an


omnipotent Authority. The object of my hon. Friends and myself is to prevent that by means of this Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) was right to refer to remarks made by the Minister on Second Reading. During the debate, the Minister said:
 But the clear underlying aim of Part II of the Bill is that the N.P.A., acting through port boards, should become the principal operator of port facilities · "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th December, 1970; Vol. 793, c. 1578.]
We were surely entitled to assume from the Minister's use of the word " principal " that the Bill would provide for the National Ports Authority to be the principal operator of ports facilities. But, when the Bill was published, it provided for a complete monopoly of ports facilities operated by the N.P.A.
I find it difficult to understand why hon. Members opposite often show great indignation about the prospect of a private monopoly and yet revel in the prospect of setting up yet another public monopoly. A monopoly, whether public or private, brings with it some evils. First, it restricts the range of choice available to the public. Secondly, there is no control by operation of the market over the prices charged. Those are evils which follow the setting up of a public monopoly just as quickly as the creation of a private monopoly.
When the Government set up a monopoly, realising the threat to the rights of the consumer involved in setting it up, they almost invariably try to create various checks and balances. They set up a Post Office Corporation, and then a Post Office Users' Consultative Council.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not debating nationalisation or monopolies. The only checks and balances which we are debating are those in the hon. Gentleman's own Amendment.

Mr. Waddington: I realise that I was skating on thin ice, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to emphasise my point that the creation of a monopoly, whether State or private, is always followed by some evils and the public do not gain.
When the Minister made his speech on Second Reading, we thought that it was not his intention to set up a complete

monopoly of ports facilities. The Bill gives the N.P.A. a complete monopoly of ports facilities. I thought that ever since the Rochdale Report people agreed that we wanted fewer operators in the ports. We on this side of the House do not subscribe to the view that there shot.,M be only one operator—the N.P.A. That is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Mapp: Yesterday evening, the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), in speaking to an Amendment, said, " Do not let us be dogmatic and over-political ". He then proceeded to make a political speech. I will not do that.
I wish to consider the Amendment. It is highly impracticable. It has precisely the opposite meaning to that given by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). It would have the effect of completely paralysing the N.P.A. if there were no competitors to provide a particular service. If there were no competitors or no one willing to provide that service, the authority would be caught by the Amendment. It would be a monopoly supplier and, therefore, would be unable to ask for a vesting order.
This illustrates the crazy position of the Opposition. They constantly indulge in political dogma when we should be thinking about the turn-round of a port.
I do not argue that a Ports Authority, run by a sensible and practical people. would want a monopoly of services. It would be foolish if it did. There are some services which it would not be fitted to perform. If the authority was the only body able to provide a certain service, the Amendment would paralyse the whole operation.
I am not a lawyer. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has legal qualifications. But the Amendment would preclude the Authority from asking for a vesting order if it had a monopoly of one or more services.

Mr. Waddington: For a non-lawyer, the hon. Gentleman is certainly pursuing a legalistic argument. I gather from his assertion that he recognises that in certain cases it would be desirable for there to be operators other than the N.P.A. of port facilities. In other words, is he not agreeing with the spirit, if not with the drafting, of the Amendment?

Mr. Mapp: The fault of politicians is that they frequently argue that black is white. The hon. Gentleman is asserting that because I said one thing I must automatically mean another.
I said that it is likely, indeed possible, that certain operations conducted in various estuaries might lend themselves to be run by people other than the local port authority. I am not so dogmatic as to say that other people should not carry out these tasks. We must be practical about this. The hon. Gentleman did not dispute my interpretation of the words of the Amendment and I trust that he will agree that the local port authority must be given the flexibility which any sensible management demands.
The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) referred to the problem of deep-water vessels not being able to be loaded in certain ports and needing the right to go to other ports. If I thought that the Amendment would obviate that difficulty, I would be sympathetic towards it, but it does not deal with that problem. Nor will the Bill as a whole create or increase that problem.
The Amendment is not only dogmatic, but is neither sensible nor practicable. It would tie the hands of an authority which is endeavouring to improve the turn-round of its port. I wish that hon. Gentlemen opposite would stop seeking all the time to paralyse national bodies of the type we are discussing which, generally speaking, are doing a good job for the country.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: In his legalistic argument, the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) accused my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) of not having read the Amendment. That was a bit thick. Having read it, I suggest that by not giving
 the Authority exclusive rights to provide port services within the specified harbour …
it would not prevent the N.P.A. from providing any service.
A short while ago I was in Parliament Square, where I saw one photographer taking photographs of passers-by. He did not have an exclusive right to their custom, but he happened to be the only one there. If the N.P.A. is providing a facility which nobody else is providing,

that cannot be described as the N.P.A. having an exclusive right to provide that facility. Thus, the Amendment merely says that the authority should not have such an exclusive right.

Mr. Mapp: If the photographer needed permission to photograph passers-by, and he satisfied the requirements resulting in permission being given to him, then what he is doing is completely lawful. However, if the House states in legislation that that photographer must be the only appellant, as it were, and the only photographer allowed to be there, then, because of that legislation, he would be in a monopoly position. The Amendment, in the terms of this analogy, would have us say that that state of affairs should not arise and that no authority could be given for him to be there on his own.

Mr. Wilson: I do not read the Amendment in that fashion. It merely says:
 (provided that such vesting does not give the Authority exclusive rights to provide port services within the specified harbour …
It does not say that the person or body providing a service or facility must have some form of competition. If the person providing the facility happens to be the only one providing it, that is just bad luck for those using that facility.

4.15 p.m.

We are anxious to avoid nationalised industries having a monopolistic position. I am always puzzled when I think that this House goes to endless trouble to protect the public from the hands of a private monopoly—we have the Monopolies Commission, and so on—while hon. Gentlemen opposite seem less anxious to prevent a monopolistic situation arising in other circumstances.

As I believe that both circumstances—private and State monopolies—are basically the same, it is desirable to avoid State bodies obtaining a monopolistic position because nothing encourages less enterprise than the ability to say, " It does not matter what sort of service we provide because nobody else is providing it."

The hon. Member for Oldham, East and I have both been in the railway service. He will recall the days when the railways were in a monopolistic position. They took advantage of that position. They knew that nobody else


could provide the sort of service they should have provided, so they did not bother. In recent times they have been under heavy competition, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not want a recurrence in this and other industries of what occurred in the past.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Mr. Peter Mahon rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The danger of analogies being pursued too far is that they widen the debate.

Mr. Mahon: Is not the hon. Gentleman hoisting himself with his own petard when he refers to the inefficiency of the past? We want to eradicate that inefficiency, and where there has been wholesale inefficiency in an industry, we want to rectify it.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that it is bad for there to be either a private or State monopoly. We should avoid that situation arising and, for this reason, I support the Amendment.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): Although, as the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) pointed out, we did not manage to discuss an Amendment similar to this in Committee, we dealt with the substance of this proposal when we considered another Amendment.
We have said, not only in Committee but on Second Reading, that nothing in the Bill will give the N.P.A. a monopoly over common user port services at its harbours. I pointed out in Committee that the White Paper said in paragraph 16 that in the Government's view the achievement of the greatest possible degree of efficiency required that the nationalised authorities should become the principal operators of the port services. Nothing in the Bill will give the N.P.A. the sort of monopoly position that has been described today.
It is true that the number of businesses providing common user port services has been greatly reduced as a result of the introduction of employer licensing under the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966. Nevertheless, there remains in our ports an exceedingly complicated organisational pattern which the Bill will do much to alter.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) suggested that he did not like private monopolies any more than public monopolies, but I have not heard him over-emphasise the position in Manchester, where the company provides all the port services at the harbour. In Committee, the Opposition pointed out the efficiency of Manchester, where the company provides all those services.
The House should reject this Amendment because it is completely unnecessary. There is nothing in the Bill which gives the N.P.A. this monopoly. The exceptions and provisions for objections in the Bill make that quite clear.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is regrettable that the Parliamentary Secretary should have given that advice to the House, because continually throughout the report stage we have sought to produce very moderate and restrictive Amendments to carry out what we regard as the spirit of the assurances we have had so often from Ministers in Committee. We hoped this was another Amendment which would make it easy for them to accept what we are trying to achieve.
The wording of the Amendment refers to " the generality of users ". If there are special users in special circumstances it would not be claimed that our Amendment applied in those specific cases. We are dealing with the broad scene. It would be perfectly reasonable for the National Ports Authority to argue that it should have a specific position in regard to its customers. That was the first let out we provided to help the N.P.A. and the Government to feel that they had a reasonable deal under the Amendment.
Then there are the exclusive rights and means by which the N.P.A. could go a very long way along the road to provide a wide range of services. Only when one arrives at the outside level of services does one not want to see the total rights taken by the N.P.A. to carry out the provision of all those services. This, Mr. Speaker, is a very moderate Amendment. You will agree that it would not restrict—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker cannot consider the value of any Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine: In not being able to consider the value of this Amendment,


you are in company with the Government, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish to invoke your support. I hope that the Government would appreciate that this is a most moderate Amendment. It it is not designed to hamper the N.P.A., but to put before it a discipline which would make it ask some basic questions before extending its powers.
It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to ask us why we think that a safeguard of this sort should be introduced. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary was less than fair when he suggested that there was nothing in the Bill implying that the N.P.A. would have a monopoly position.
I have read the wording of Clause 33(1). It is quite clear. It says:
 any port business carried on at a harbour of the National Ports Authority may, on the application of the Authority, be vested in them by an order of the Minister.
" Any business" means all businesses. Will there be any incentive for the N.P.A. to vest a small proportion of the businesses, half the businesses, or all of them? What will be the incentive from the authority's point of view? The danger will be that the National Ports Authority, because of the rather vague generalisations about co-ordination, rationalisation and harmonisation—all these rather phoney, jazzy phrases which the Government introduce—may think it should take over all the businesses.
There is also a sound practical reason why I think it will be tempted to take over all the businesses. That is because it is easier to run monopolies than to run competitive businesses. Life is a lot cosier for those who do not have to face competition. The authority will be tempted to say, " Life will be easier for us in organising our port if we do not have competition."

Mr. Murray: The hon. Member is talking about temptation, but I was talking about what is actually in the Bill. Whether he can attempt to read what the temptations of the N.P.A. will be is a different matter.

Mr. Heseltine: The Parliamentary Secretary has lived long enough to know that where there is temptation there will always be those who yield to it. It is

our business to anticipate the fact that at some future date a member of the National Ports Authority will give in to caprices which all of us, of course, would be capable of resisting.
Within the Bill there is the power to create total and absolute monopolies. It is in Clause 33. It is our contention that where we give people the statutory right to create monopolies there will be a considerable number of occasions on which they can create precisely those monopolies. We think that there is every argument from an efficiency point of view, from the users' point of view, and the point of view of maximisation of resources, to ensure that there is a degree of competition. That in itself produces the most successful form of organisation in the commercial world.
If the authority provides all the services, the Minister from time to time will have to judge the performance of the authority. By what criteria will he be able to judge it? How will he examine its performance to see whether it has, in fact, carried out its job as efficiently as it can be carried out? He has not divine wisdom in this matter; none of us has. His civil servants are not equipped to make that sort of judgment from an academic standpoint unless comparative figures are available for examination. If the authority is encouraged by the Government, as it will be, to eliminate the one factual basis for comparison, the ability of the Minister to make an objective judgment will be seriously prejudiced.
It was precisely that argument, I understand, that preserved their airport for the people of Manchester in the late 1940s. When the Labour Government at that time intended to take over all the airports of the country, it was precisely that argument which enabled the people of Manchester to say, " If you allow us to keep our airport, in judging the performance of the nationalised airports you will have a sector in comparison with which you can judge standards of efficiency ".
The people of Manchester, to the tune of £202,000, have profited by keeping Ringway Airport. [Interruption.] I understand the argument is that because Manchester Airport is a municipal airport it is under public ownership. If so, what is the point of taking over the municipally-owned Port of Bristol?

Mr. Ellis: I am in a position to help the hon. Member. In Bristol, we have had a situation in which the private stevedoring interest comprises the people who made the profit although the local municipality have provided the port. The private stevedores, by bad labour relations, have gained the " swag ".

Mr. Heseltine: It is interesting to justify two vague generalisations and compare them with the factual results, which are the only things which should influence us. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) must be aware that the closer we have got to nationalisation of the ports the worse have become labour relations in the docks. [HON. MEMBERS: " Oh !"] The figures are there. I am happy to give way if anyone wishes to challenge them. If the lion. Member for Walton had been on the Committee, he would be aware of the figures produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), which indicated—

Mr. Eric Heffer: They are wrong.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Heseltine: I accept that the figures were open to challenge because they came from the Department of Employment and Productivity. We have learnt over the years to have a cynical regard for figures produced by the right hon. Lady, even more as Minister of Transport than as Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. Her figures need careful examination. Her hon. Friends are right to take a jaundiced view, as they continually do, of the Government. It is sensible of them.
I want to move to the points made by the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon). He did less than justice to the factual situation in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, which is a cornerstone to the arguments we are having about nationalisation. Probably in that dock is the one insoluble financial problem. [Interruption.] I wish that the hon. Member for Walton would listen occasionally when hon. Members are talking about his own docks. He knows so little both about the total problem and about that one aspect of it that

it would do him good to listen and learn.

Mr. Heller: If the hon. Gentleman would for once stop being arrogant, he would know that some of us have worked practically for many years in the docks industry and know a great deal more about it than lie will ever know.

Mr. Heseltine: " Arrogant " is a difficult word. As the hon. Gentleman talked to his hon. Friends, showing that he is quite indifferent to my speech, I thought that at least the charge of ill-manners was applicable to him.

Mr. Helfer: The hon. Gentleman is the most ill-mannered person I have ever met.

Mr. Heseltine: The most profitable line of progress for us is to discuss the ports and their problems. If I can be assured that the hon. Member for Walton will now listen, as opposed to chatting to his hon. Friends, I will get on.
The hon. Member for Preston, South was less than fair in his analysis of the problems of Liverpool. I have said continually, and have been to Liverpool on a number of occasions to discuss it, that it probably has the one insoluble financial problem in our docks at the moment. That is my personal judgment. It is the one area where one cannot see a means of solving its financial difficulties purely because of the funding of its long-term capital stock.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Gentleman throws out many challenges. He would no doubt be disappointed if they were not responded to, because I know that he wants to learn a lot about a subject of which he knows very little. He throws out these challenges to enable us to give him the knowledge which it is necessary for him to have.
The difficulties he talked about in Liverpool are a figment of the imagination. Under nationalisation, there is rapid improvement, notably in the conditions of the workers. As I am only making an intervention, I cannot develop this theme, but it is the gospel truth that the difficulties which the hon. Gentleman alleges are a figment of the imagination and no more. It is not a very honourable stance in public life to develop a case on non-existent difficulties.

Mr. Heseltine: I thought that the figures were very real. I remind the hon. Member for Preston, South that he was telling us about great difficulties of the past. During the last few minutes of interruptions, I have been handed the figures, issued by the Department of Employment and Productivity, showing the working days lost in the docks under the present Government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I have just come into the Chair and have been trying to ascertain the relevance of the remarks of the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to the Amendment. Perhaps he will help me.

Mr. Heseltine: I will do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We are arguing that it would be harmful to enable the National Ports Authority to create a monopoly posture in the services provided by the docks and that, year by year, as a result of Government policies, certain changes have been made in the docks which have led directly to a worsening of the industrial situation. I submit that it is reasonable to argue that any major upheaval of the sort envisaged in the Clause could be reasonably expected to continue the disruption which has arisen over the last few years.
I have the figures which hon. Members challenged earlier. I do not intend to give them in detail. I merely wish to state categorically that, under this Government, there has been a dramatic worsening in the number of days lost in the docks, and that the more legislation of the sort they have introduced as a panacea for our problems the worse the situation has become. If hon. Members wish me to develop that point. I will do so, but I do not want to take up too much time. But these figures were produced by the right hon. Lady. They are available. It is appalling that hon. Members opposite have not even taken the trouble to find out what they are. They just go on with airy-fairy generalisations with total disregard for facts.

Mr. Heller: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into people's mouths. I never said anything about the strike situation which existed before the Government came into office, or since. He has put that matter up as his Aunt

Sally. I have never expressed a view on this at any time.
I accept that there has been, in the recent period, a growth of short-term strikes in docks which has arisen because of certain conditions, rooted in the type of agreements that were concluded on Merseyside—the area I know in particular—which I have, I hope, in the recent past helped to eliminate. I am talking here about the agreement reached two or three weeks ago which we hope will eliminate these short-term difficulties.
No one is suggesting that nationalisation will be a panacea for all our industrial problems. Anyone who did so would be utterly foolish. What we are saying is that, under nationalisation, there will be undoubted development in other welfare arrangements which at present the workers have not got under private enterprise.

Mr. Heseltine: We are now widening the gap between the hon. Member for Walton and the hon. Member for Preston, South. I was arguing the points which arose in the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South when he outlined difficulties which had arisen in Liverpool out of the historical background. I was making it clear that more difficulties had arisen as more changes took place and the private sector was reduced in size.
The hon. Member for Walton has made a helpful intervention, and one with which I am sympathetic. There is real need for the injection of new management techniques and different approaches to the way in which work is conducted in the docks. I have said so many times and if I were responsible for docks policy I would not hesitate to take steps to enable that improvement to be brought about.
But I say that the policy of nationalisation might make it even harder to bring about these changes, There is certainly nothing in the policy of nationalisation which will make it easier. Nationalisation of other industries has often been followed by a worsening of industrial relations. But there is no reason why an improvement in management techniques should not lead to a better situation. There is nothing in nationalisation by itself which leads automatically to the improvement of industrial relations. They


are a question of the science of management, which is a skill that we should increasingly try to concentrate on in industry.

Mr. John Mendelson: I represent a coal-mining area. The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. He knows even less about other publicly-owned industries than he does about the ports. Every miner will tell him that, in the coal industry, it was only the spirit and atmosphere created by public ownership which enabled the industry to get through a difficult period without strikes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the principle of the matter, but whether, having accepted the principle, it should be extended to give exclusive rights to provide port services to the generality of port users. I have heard nothing about the Amendment yet.

Mr. Mendelson: As I pointed out to the Chair yesterday, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is quite deliberately dragging in other industries. He is always putting himself out of order, so we then take it that we have the right to reply.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not accuse the hon. Gentleman of going out of order. He answered what was said. I was pointing out that in all directions we are going away from the Amendment.

Mr. Heseltine: I am always worried in these debates that whenever an hon. Member from this side argues a serious point it is always suggested that we do not know anything about the subject. But whenever we challenge hon. Members opposite to produce figures they are quite incapable of doing so. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) will be aware—and I have the figures here—that the coal industry has the highest level of unofficial strikes in the country; but I do not wish to pursue the matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must insist that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are waiting to come on to other important Amendments. This is a serious matter which ought to be taken into account by you. This is quite deliberate. We had it yesterday.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a paucity of matters to talk about and they are out to prove to the country that they need a Guillotine. We have seen this before—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) that his intervention will make it more difficult rather than easier to bring the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) to order. I hope that he will leave it to the Chair.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to you Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having had two hours and ten minutes taken away from us yesterday by hon. Members opposite it is not right for them to question our debate on this occasion.
I was talking about the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South. He advanced a number of important points which I wish to cover. He said that if we allowed Clause 33 to go through without the Amendment it would lead to greater efficiency. That is what he said and that represents his argument completely. I only ask him this question. It is no use asking the Parliamentary Secretary because he does not know the answer, I have asked him many times. I ask the hon. Member for Preston, South —he is a fair-minded man—what possible evidence he has for that contention?

Mr. Peter Mahon: I rise to the bait, because I am anxious to enlighten the young hon. Gentleman. He is very zealous and dedicated. I think that he will go far—but perhaps not far enough for me.
This whole industry is undergoing a process of evolution. We have not a fairy godmother's wand, or an Aladdin's lamp. It is impossible to come by the like of that in this industry. We can expect these developments to arise only as a result of a spendid dynamic application of attention, looking at all the facets of the industry, correcting all the anomalies of the past and, above all, recognising the dignity of the people who matter most, those who have to work so hard from morning to night.

Mr. Heseltine: That is a very fair answer, but the one point which did not appear in it was a reference to changing the ownership and introducing nationalisation. This is the point. There is


throughout the world a fund of information about the way in which docks can be operated and managed. There are good docks and bad docks, there is casual labour and decasualised labour, and there are labour schemes of one sort and another. All these things can be examined.
There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the aim sought by the hon. Member for Preston, South would be advanced in the slightest by the solutions embodied in the Bill. He can only say that it is his personal faith that, if we create the monopolies envisaged under the Clause, things will get better. There is no evidence for it whatever. I have travelled a good deal—I think that I am one of very few hon. Members who have travelled about the world looking at docks and harbours—and I am fairly sure that no one can find any precedent or example to counter what I say. That is why I am against the Government's policy.
Next, the hon. Member for Preston, South made a point about the small ports. It is his faith that, if we impose the sort of solution which rejection of the Amendment entails, that is, if we create a total monopoly, things will get better. For five years, the Government have been looking at this alternative. They have been considering the Mikardo proposals in the working document and the right hon. Lady's proposals in relation to taking over all ports with more than 100,000 tons throughput. They have rejected that concept of totally eliminating competition, and they have done so for reasons which I regard as commendable, realising the value of competition in this industry.
Those hon. Members opposite who were pleading yesterday to widen the scope understand the position. The message is clear. They understand precisely the threat which the small ports present to the big ports. The Government understand it, too, but the Government want that threat in order to keep the big ports on their toes.
I accept and welcome that argument from the Government in terms of port ownership. It is correct to have individual businesses in the ports because that is the only way to keep the major suppliers of

services on their toes. The Government have thus argued coherently on our side in leaving out all ports below 5 million tons thoughput. They should have followed the same line by accepting our Amendment now.

4.45 p.m.

The hon. Member for Oldham, East, as always, made a thoughtful contribution. He produced what seemed to me for one moment the most damning argument against the Amendment, and I felt that I should have been willing to suggest that there might, perhaps, be some sort of adjustment between the Government and the Opposition so that we could find a way of redrafting the Amendment. But then my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) made a totally effective reply.

The hon. Member for Oldham, East had suggested that, if no one were willing to provide port services, there would be no port services, and, therefore, the local port board in this case would be paralysed. But that is not so at all. We are talking not about the provision of services but about the right to provide services. This is the point.

The Amendment says that the port can go on providing services, as it is empowered to do under the Bill, and it may provide any range of services under the Bill. But if a major customer of the port says, " We want to provide our own service ", the authority would not have the right by Statute to say, " You are not allowed to provide this service ". There would be a discussion and negotiation, and the Ports Authority would have to persuade the user that it could do the job better for the user than the user could do it himself. That is the simple issue.

Mr. Mapp: The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House. I am not a lawyer. I understand these things as a layman, as the hon. Gentleman does. The authority would not be able to apply for an Order. Never mind whether there will be a set of services or not, it would not be able to apply to the Minister for an Order.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Why?

Mr. Mapp: The Amendment expressly says that it must not be a monopoly supplier. It is a complete veto. I am


not concerned so much about the environment. There could be people wanting to provide services just as good as the Ports Authority, or there could be others who did not wish to enter into it. But the words of the Amendment do not lead to the conclusion which the hon. Gentleman is arguing. This is so often our complaint about the Opposition, that they say a lot of things which suit their dogma but which are in no way suited to reality.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman has now changed his ground. Earlier, he painted a harrowing picture of the docks and ships coming in, but the Ports Authority did not have power to unload them. We could all sympathise with that. Now, he says that the services are there and the authority has not the right to expropriate those services in order to unload the ships. This is very different.
I do not mind whether he is arguing the case as he put it first, or as he put it in his intervention. There is no great virtue in allowing the authority to have power to spend taxpayers' money in order to take over a service which is adequately provided already. I should support the hon. Gentleman if that were his interpretation, but I do not think that it would affect the Amendment. The idea

of the services being provided independently of the authority does not worry me. I should welcome it.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I must correct the interpretation suggested by the hon. Member for Oldham, East. If our Amendment were made, the Clause would read:
 … and on an application being duly made for a vesting order … provided that such vesting does not give the Authority exclusive rights to provide port services within the specified harbour to the generality of users, the Minister shall make the order unless it appears to him 
That does not prevent an Order being made if there is no other applicant, so far as I can see.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has given the complete legal answer on the point, and I am much obliged. There are many other matters to discuss, and I shall detain the House no further. We have put an overwhelming argument from this side, it is absolutely right that the Amendment should be pressed, and I have every confidence in asking my hon. Friends to support it in the Lobby.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 246.

Division No. 111.]
AYES
[4.50 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fry, Peter


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Channon, H. P. G.
Gilmour,Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chataway, Christopher
Glover, Sir Douglas


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Clegg, Walter
Goodhew, Victor


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Gower, Raymond


Balniel, Lord
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Grant, Anthony


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Cordle, John
Gurden, Harold


Batsford, Brian
Costain, A. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Biffen John
Danco, James
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Heseltine, Michael


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Hiley, Joseph


Body, Richard
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hill, J. E B.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Doughty, Charles
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Drayson, G. B.
Holland, Philip


Braine, Bernard
Eden, Sir John
Hordern, Peter


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
HornBy, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliot, R. W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hunt, John


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Farr, John
Iremonger, T. L.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bryan, Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Foster, Sir John
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Burden, F. A.
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)




jopling, Michael
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speed, Keith


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony


Kershaw, Anthony
Neave, Alrey
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Summers, Sir Spencer


King, Tom
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Lane, David
Nott, John
Taylor, Edward M. (G 'gow.Cathcart)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Onslow, Cranley
Temple, John M.


Lawier, Wallace
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Tilney, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Pardoe, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Lubbock, Eric
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Vickers, Dame Joan


MacArthur, Ian
Peel, John
Waddington, David


Mackenzie, Alasdair(RossCrom'ty)
Peyton, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McMaster, Stanley
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


McNair-Wilson. Michael
Prior, J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Pym, Francis
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Maddan, Martin
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Maginnis, John E.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Weatherill, Bernard


Marten, Neil
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maude, Angus
Ridsdale, Julian
Wiggin, Jerry


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Mawby, Ray
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott, Nicholas
Worsley, Marcus


Monro, Hector
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wright, Esmond


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Silvester, Frederick



Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Sinclair, Sir George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick L'mington)
Mr. Anthony Royle


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, John (London W 'minster)
and Mr. Timothy Kitson




NOES


Abse, Leo
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Albu, Austen
Dalyell, Tam
Haseldine, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hattersley, Roy


Alldritt, Walter
Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Hazell, Bert


Allen, Scholefield
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Heffer, Eric S.


Anderson, Donald
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Henig, Stanley


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis Tipt'n)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Armstrong, Ernest
Davis, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Barnes, Michael
Doig, Peter
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Barnett, Joel
Driberg, Tom
Hunter, Adam


Baxter, William
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hynd, John


Beaney, Alan
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th C'b'e)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Eadie, Alex
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp;Spenb'gh)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Bidwell, Sydney
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Binns, John
Ellis, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bishop, E. S.
English, Michael
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Blackburn, F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Fernyhough, E.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Booth, Albert
Finch, Harold
Jones,Rt. Hn. Elwyn(W.Ham,S


Boston, Terence
Foley, Maurice
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Judd, Frank


Boyden, James
Forrester, John
Kelley, Richard


Bradley, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Brooks, Edwin
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lawson, George


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Gardner, Tony
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Garrett, W. E.
Lee, John (Reading)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ginsburg, David
Lestor, Miss Joan


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Golding, John
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Buchan, Norman
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Lipton, Marcus


Cant, R. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Lomas, Kenneth


Carmichael, Neil
Gregory, Arnold
Loughlin, Charles


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Coe, Denis
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McBride, Neil


Coleman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
McCann, John


Concannon, J. D.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacDermot, Niall


Conlan, Bernard
Hamling, William
Macdonald, A. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harper, Joseph
McElhone, Frank







McGulre, Michael
Oswald, Thomas
Small, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Spriggs, Leslie


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Mackie, John
Paget, R. T.
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Mackintosh, John P.
Palmer, Arthur
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Maclennan, Robert
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirliey


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Swain, Thomas


MacPherson, Malcolm
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Symonds, J. B.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Taverne, Dick


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Mapp, Charles
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Tinn, James


Marquand, David
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Tomney, Frank


Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tuck, Raphael


Maxwell, Robert
Price, William (Rugby)
Urwin, T. W.


Mayhew, Christopher
Probert, Arthur
Varley, Eric G.


Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Randall, Harry
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mendelson, John
Rankin, John
Watkins, David (Consett)


Millan, Bruce
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Richard, Ivor
Weitzman, David


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wellbeloved, James


Mitchell, B. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Molloy, William
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitaker, Ben


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Morris Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Whitlock, William


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Moyle, Roland
Rose, Paul
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Murray, Albert
Rowlands, E.
William,Rt. Hn. George


Neal, Harold
Sheldon, Robert
Winnick, David


Newens, Stan
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ogden, Eric
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Woof, Robert


O'Halloran, Michael
Short, Mrs. RenSe(W'hampton,N.E.)



O'Malley, Brian
Sillars J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oram, Bert
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Ioan L. Evans


Orbach, Maurice
Slater, Joseph
and Mr. R. F. H. Dobson


Orme, Stanley

Amendment made: No. 63, in page 47, line 33, leave out from ' business ' to ' is ' in line 36.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 129, in page 48, line 4, at end
insert:
(3) The authority may with the consent of the person carrying on a business apply for a vesting order with respect to any business at a harbour before the harbour is placed under the charge of the authority (but not before the establishment of a port board for the harbour), with a view to the order being made on the harbour being placed under their charge; and in connection with an application so made any question whether a business is one about which a vesting order may be made shall be determined as if the harbour were already under the charge of the authority.
This is a case of a subsection which was in, then was not, and now we want it to be in again, though not with quite the original wording.
The House will be aware from study of our Standing Committee deliberations that we had an important debate on the matter in Committee. The original subsection did not contain the words
 with the consent of the person carrying on a business ".
It has been suggested to us that various Shipowners with a direct interest in port

businesses would like to have the reworded subsection in the Bill, so that the Authority should be able to apply for vesting orders not with respect to all businesses but just where the people carrying on the business apply for that order. It will thus be possible for the person carrying on a business to test the procedure that will apply under the Bill when it becomes an Act at the earliest possible moment, should he wish to do so.
Our objection to the original subsection was that the right was entirely one-sided. The authority had a blanket right to apply for vesting orders. Under our proposed new subsection it could do so only if a person carrying on a business asked for this to happen.
I apologise to the Minister for not having put down the Amendment earlier. The matter was brought to my attention only on Monday. The Chamber of Shipping is anxious that this wording should be reinstated in the Bill, but I emphasise that the subsection is very different from the original.

Mr. Ellis: I expected the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) to be much


more apologetic in moving the Amendment, because I remember our Committee debate on the subject very well. I was rather terse with one of my hon. Friends earlier, because I was doing some research. He asked me a question, and I was very short with him because I was looking in to the matter. I looked at the original Bill. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the proposed subsection is there, apart from the words
 with the consent of the person carrying on a business.
He says that there is an important principle there.
We should explain the position for the benefit of hon. Members who were not on the Committee. The original subsection was an innocuous part of the Bill, which sought to make a provision similar to that in compulsory purchase procedure, so that people who were likely to be taken over could say for their own convenience, " When the vesting day is appointed, you will take over. It is to my convenience that you take over earlier." The hon. Gentleman is apparently now willing to have this provision in the Bill. Although the subsection did not contain the words to which I have referred, my right hon. Friend made its purpose perfectly clear in Committee.
When the hon. Gentleman sought to delete the whole subsection in Committee he could instead have put down an Amendment providing that it should apply with the consent of the people taken over. But he said:
 I have said some rude things about the Bill over the past weeks. I find this subsection remarkably objectionable, unless I have misread it,…
The National Ports Authority will be in a position to apply for vesting orders on businesses in harbours not yet under their control, and even though they could not fully ascertain the conditions in that harbour until it was completely in their charge. This is jumping the gun."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd March, 1970; c. 781.]
The hon. Gentleman objected very forcibly to the principle and asked that the subsection be taken out. He said, in effect, " Let us wait till vesting day before the Minister, machiavellian and dripping with Socialism, swoops in. It is wrong to do it on all counts." My right hon. Friend cooed at the hon. Gentleman

and said that it was not his intention that that should happen. The provision had been inserted merely for the convenience of people who knew that they would be taken over.
Then the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) entered the debate. He is a downy bird, and he realised that the Minister had a point. He referred to the words inserted in the proposed new subsection and said that these made the position substantially different. My right hon. Friend was courteous and said that he did not care whether the subsection was in or out, but had thought he was being helpful. He gave the assurance sought by the hon. Gentleman the original subsection would have achieved exactly the same purpose, but that was not good enough for the lion. Member for Tavistock. He said, " That is as it may be, but let us take it out. We can look at it on Report and put it back."
My right hon. Friend would be within his rights if he said, " After the charade upstairs, you can get knotted " and leave out what the Opposition proposed. We have heard about the Opposition supposedly fighting this objectionable Bill.

Mr. Heifer: Wasting time.

Mr. Ellis: We had a Guillotine in Committee which was never used. We have a Guillotine again today. We took things out in Committee at the behest of the Opposition which they now proposed to put hack. It is no good the hon. Member for Tavistock pointing to his watch and indicating the time. We need never have had this debate at all. This is an example of what has happened on the Bill. If the Opposition had got their Amendment right in the first place, this would never have happened.
The Opposition should make it clear that the Minister went out of his way to help them. They had an assurance from the Government. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. I see no objection to his accepting it. But I hope that the Opposition will not say that it makes all that difference. In Committee, they challenged the principle of the matter. What has happened today reveals what has been going on. This has been a mock fight. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not start issuing


Press statements about the Government imposing a Guillotine and how hard the Opposition have been fighting. It was not true in Committee, and it is certainly not true today.

Mr. Mulley: We have had a colourful, but fairly accurate, account of what has happened from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis). The Amendment provides that
 The authority may with the consent of the person carrying on a business apply for a vesting order with respect to any business at a harbour before the harbour is placed under the charge of the authority …
When great exception was taken to this in Committee, I explained that the main purpose was to assist businesses which wished to contest the procedures of the Bill, particularly the skeleton procedure, to discover whether they would be exempted, which they would be anxious to do as early as possible to remove uncertainty. I suggested to the Committee that it was not a matter of importance from the point of view of authority. It was of value to those with businesses which might come into the take-over question.
In its original form, the Bill did not include the words
 with the consent of the person carrying on a business.
I agree that that is a change. It was probably implicit because the Authority will have a great deal to do. In any event, it would be unlikely that it would wish to apply for vesting orders except with the full co-operation of the business concerned. I agree that it would be a good thing to have that phrase in the Clause.
Having told the Committee that I was not very worried about whether the provision was in or out of the Bill. I am now in the unusual position of advising hon. Members to accept a Government Amendment.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: It is good of the Minister to disguise one of the Opposion's Amendments as a Government Amendment. This is an Opposition Amendment. I am grateful to him for accepting that the introduction of the phrase into the Clause is an improvement. That is all that we said in Committee. We said that there was no point

in taking up time when this matter could have been disposed of in a few minutes.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) has done his party a great service. He has suddenly brought to life Government back benchers in support of a case put forward by the Opposition. This is the first time that I have seen them convinced by anything which has been said. I suppose that we have developed an over-suspicion of arguments and motives. It was not surprising, therefore, that this Amendment was looked at critically. Now that we have come to the conclusion that it is acceptable, it is right to deal with it quickly. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West for his polished performance. It is a pity that we shall shortly be deprived of further performances from him.

Mr. Keith Stainton: Despite the comments of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), the proceedings on subsection (3) of the Clause ran to no more than two pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. It occurred to me in Committee that deletion of the former subsection (3) could have given rise to various consequential Amendments. Not having the legal capacity to trace the Amendments on the Notice Paper, could the Minister assure us that by putting this back—

Mr. Mulley: I do not think that that would present any difficulty, but I will check. The hon. Gentleman is always wise in giving advice, and one can never be too careful. I have no reason to think that there are any problems.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 64, in page 48, line 19, after ' power ', insert:
' (subject to any agreement under section (Power to except businesses by agreement) below) '.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 65.

Mr. Stainton: On a point of order. Perhaps my list is out of date, but I do not have Amendment No. 65 on the list prepared by order of Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the practice not to enumerate Government Amendments. The hon. Gentleman will see from the top of the list that all Government


Amendments have been selected. Amendment No. 65 is a Government Amendment.

Mr. Stainton: There is nothing about Government Amendments at the top of the list which I have. It says:
 " Ports Bill. Mr. Speaker's provisional selection of Amendments. Consideration of Bill, as amended …".
It then refers to " All Government Amendments ".

Mr. Murray: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 48, line 25, leave out ' transfer date ' and insert:
' date on which the business so vests '.
This is purely a drafting Amendment, designed to prevent possible confusion about the wording of the Bill. It results from the insertion of subsection (5) in Committee.

Mr. Berry: We have no objection to the Amendment. It is one of many Government Amendments put down following suggestions made by the Opposition. I can understand why the piece of paper showing the selection of Amendments was not big enough to take all the Government Amendments. I must point out that the last Amendment which we accepted was an Opposition Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 33

PROVISION FOR VESTING PORT BUSINESSES IN NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 48, line 45, at end insert:
(8) Before making an order under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall arrange for public enquiries to be held in areas where substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port users to the effect that the consequences of the transfer of the port businesses concerned to the Authority could affect adversely the prosperity of the area in question, and he shall be under an obligation to consider the reports of any such public enquiry before making an order.
This is an important Amendment, which deserves to be closely considered. Some hon. Members may think that they have recently seen a rather similar Amendment, and they would be right.

The fact that the House did not feel, to my surprise and regret, able to accept the Amendment moved so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) yesterday, makes it all the more important to consider this Amendment in much more detail. This is a serious proposal which would be of great benefit to the industry. It is not like the other one, a wrecking Amendment.
The areas of inquiry are very limited and the Amendment carefully defines the type of person whose representations could lead to such an inquiry. They are representations by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port users. We only want inquiries to be held if they are really wanted by those with a genuine right to demand them.
Perhaps I can answer some of the points made by the Minister last night and anticipate his arguments. We are not suggesting that each time the Government introduce an Act a public inquiry should be held into it all over the place. Our intention is to see that inquiries be held following representations such as I have described. I can assure the Minister that in the election manifesto on which the Conservative Party will fight and win the next election we will not include such a promise. The fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite said that they had not received demands for such inquiries is irrelevant because it probably had not occurred to people that there was any possibility of the Government accepting such a suggestion until now.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Would the hon. Gentleman help the House to follow more closely his argument by telling us what he means by the word " substantial " in line 2 of the Amendment?

Mr. Berry: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary got into a little trouble last night with that word and I had not intended to mention it out of the kindness of my heart. As attention has been drawn to it, I would point out that the same question was put to my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine). He reminded the House—

Mr. Ellis: Would it not be true to say that this Amendment is the same as the


one we debated last night? Would it not save a lot of time if my right hon. Friend went out of the Chamber, got a copy of yesterday's HANSARD and read about the debate which we are to have?

Mr. Berry: The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) is in a state of completely unwarranted euphoria. I cannot understand why. I am sorry that he will not be with us in the next Parliament—he nearly lost his deposit at one point in Committee. I do not blame him for doing what he can in his last few speeches here.
The Minister has already shown that he is making exceptions of certain types of business. In Committee I moved two Amendments dealing with fish and the right hon. Gentleman agreed to look at this and subsequently accepted the principle behind them. He has shown that he can be flexible and we would like him to go just this little bit further. The business of ports is an integral part of the commercial activities of many firms. This Bill is putting its finger on the main artery of industry throughout the country. It is important that those people involved in business should be able to control the progress of their goods and that is why we welcome the changes so far made.
Port authorities and users have a real interest in the ports and should have the opportunity of making their case to the Minister. Hon. Members opposite say that the workers in the industry do not object to the takeover of the ports, but I doubt whether many workers, at Tilbury, for example, are as much in favour of public ownership as hon. Members opposite would have us believe. Then there are the companies carrying on port businesses alongside other activities. This shows the complexity, and a public inquiry could give an indication of a proper division of labour and might save men from losing their jobs. A company could be ruined by having its structure divided in this way and the satisfaction of handing over the whole business to the authority will be no consolation at all. But the Minister would be obliged by this type of inquiry to listen to all concerned before taking over a port business.

5.30 p.m.

The port user does not usually have much choice about which port he uses. That also applies to a certain extent to the terminal or stevedoring facilities which he has to use. Nevertheless, there are independent operators and they provide an element of competition. I do not believe that the troubles of this industry will be solved by nationalisation. Nor do I believe that the way in which the Minister is setting about this matter is the best answer. But I am convinced that inquiries of this kind would prevent some of the worst aspects of the Bill from coming to fruition—and there are some very bad aspects indeed. The acceptance of the principle of public inquiries would be of major benefit to this great industry.

Yesterday, the Government refused to accept our Amendment No. 6 dealing with public inquiries into the takeover of harbours.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Shame.

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is right. The fact that the Government refused to accept Amendment No. 6 is an even stronger case for asking them to accept this one. Yesterday, the House unfortunately accepted that the National Ports Authority should take over the harbours.

Mr. Mapp: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It arises from Amendment No. 66. I have delayed my submission because I have been consulting Erskine May. The words of the Amendment are precisely similar to those of Amendment No. 6, which was moved yesterday and rejected. The only material difference is that Amendment No. 6 referred to subsection (7) whereas this Amendment refers to subsection (1). The words are otherwise alike and, for the purposes of argument, carry precisely the same intent based on the same premises. Erskine May states on page 482, referring to selection of Amendments, that Amendments were not selected
…as the questions raised by them had been covered by a previous decision ".
That is surely normal common-sense reasoning and on that basis I submit that we debated the matter raised by this Amendment yesterday. Perhaps I should


have raised this point of order earlier and I do not raise it now for light reasons. There is here the ruling of Erskine May, however, and there is the complete similarity of the wording of the two Amendments. The arguments on No. 66 are bound to be along the lines of those raised yesterday on Amendment No. 6. I submit that you should therefore consider re-ruling on whether Amendment No. 66 is in order or not.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The arguments on the two points raised by Amendment No. 6 and Amendment No. 66 are not identical in any respect. In Amendment No. 6 we were dealing with ports. On Amendment No. 66 we are dealing with port businesses. The second and more material difference between the two is that yesterday, in respect of the ports, the Minister could not exercise a discretion after such an inquiry because Clause 1 lays down which ports are to be nationalised, whereas, in the case of port businesses, he has such discretion. The arguments put forward for an inquiry in a case where there is no Ministerial discretion are quite different from those for a public inquiry in a case where there is discretion. Thus, we have one argument relating to a flexible position and another relating to an inflexible position and there is a world of difference between them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I cannot enter into the merits of the submissions made by either the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp) or the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). What is at stake here is the question of Mr. Speaker's selection. I am not empowered to select or not to select, and therefore I am unable to vary his selection. I must rule that the Amendment is in order.

Mr. Berry: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp). It is a new experience to have Erskine May quoted at me and I enjoyed it. I am indebted to him for his close interest in my speech.
The fact that Amendment No. 6 was not accepted yesterday—to my regret—emphasises the importance of No. 66. The Authority will have the responsible task of dealing with our harbours and

ports without much delay, so one pre., sumes, in view of what the Minister has had to say, and it is understandable that he should want vesting day to be reasonably soon. The authority will have quite enough in dealing with harbours without having to take on the port businesses as well. Surely, therefore, a year following vesting day would be ample time for inquiries to be made. I do not know why the Government are so worried about inquiries.

Mr. Mulley: I do not want to abbreviate the hon. Gentleman's speech because, as I have said, under a guillotine the Opposition must decide how to employ their time. But the hon. Gentleman might add that, in all those cases where orders are to be made, if the person principally concerned—the owner of the business—objects, there is procedure for a public inquiry. We are not afraid of inquiries. It is simply a question of whether the person whose business is concerned is the person who should demand the public inquiry rather than the rather vague people the hon. Gentleman puts into the Amendment.

Mr. Berry: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should consider organisations representing the workers in this industry to be classified as vague. The noises from the benches opposite have not given us that impression these last two days. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the procedures already in the Bill but there is no way for organisations representing workers or port users to make representations for a public inquiry to this effect. I believe that the Labour Party is so seriously concerned about what the reaction would be from those giving evidence at these inquiries that it is reluctant to hold them. This is patently clear. We all realise by now that the Government are very reluctant to have these inquiries. I hope that these inquiries will nevertheless become part of the Bill and then we shall see something which the Labour Party will not like one little bit.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I can probably tell the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) why we are concerned about the proposal which he has put forward. It is unfortunate that the Opposition Front Bench decided to put up the hon. Member for Southgate to


speak to this Amendment. A better choice might have been his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) who is thought by some of us to have been vaccinated with a gramophone needle, and who might have put up a better show.
It is very strange that when we propose to take over the ports, some of which are municipally owned, the apostles of free enterprise should object, and give reasons why it should not be done unless and until public inquiries have been held. We might be prepared to listen more closely to the representatives of big business who sit in the House if they practised what they preached. I am a member of an industry in which the hon. Member for Southgate and his family have been involved for many years. When I worked for the Bristol Evening Times and Echo, suddenly what we knew as the Berry Group descended and took over the paper literally overnight and within a few weeks closed it down without the slightest consideration for the people who were employed there. Then the hon. Member for Southgate has the audacity—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: On a point of order. Is not it intolerable than an hon. Member should make a quite personalised attack upon the family of one of my hon. Friends on a subject which is not suitable for discussion in this place and which it would be quite unwarrantable for my hon. Friend to try to deal with?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only rule that what the hon. Gentleman said was not out of order. I was a little more concerned with whether he would relate it to the Amendment.

Mr. Wilkins: I was trying to show how phoney is the argument that has been advanced by the hon. Member for Southgate. Amendment 66 reads thus:
 Before making an order under subsection (1) above, the Minister shall arrange for public enquiries to be held in areas where substantial representations are made by local authorities or organisations representing workers …
This is a new principle to be advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite, who never talk in these terms when they are making their take-overs. I am quoting an instance which I know about. I am not in any way imputing any motives to the hon.

Member for Southgate. All I have said is true. There was an established newspaper organisation which we knew as the Berry Group which took over a local paper without a public inquiry and with no consultation with the employees. If the hon. Member for Southgate wants to know why we object to this, it is because we do not trust hon. Gentlemen opposite. Why should there be inquiries, for example, into the nationalisation of ports when there are no public inquiries into industries that are taken over by private enterprise? The argument is completely phoney and utterly indefensible by the three hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. This is why we are opposing it—at least I hope it is. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If the Conservatives want inquiries into what is taken into public ownership, they must agree to have them when their friends take over other industries.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Gentleman has had a good innings. I know that I am making an attack, but I am doing so because the Amendment is utterly spurious and unsubstantiated in private enterprise. Nobody has a voice, very often not even the shareholders, never mind the workers, on take-overs in private enterprise. If this principle is to be adopted it should apply throughout industry.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) in his personal references to my hon. Friend—

Mr. Wilkins: Mr. Wilkins: They were not.

Mr. Mawby: They were. I see them as having a personal reference.

Mr. Wilkins: On a point of order. You have known me long enough, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to know that I do not make personal references. What I have said is the truth, and it refers to a group known as the Berry Group.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: These matters are for debate and not for the Chair.

Mr. Mawby: I do not want to go out of order, nor do I want to waste the time of the House, but that was my impression. The hon. Gentleman was


not comparing like with like. The Government have set up the I.R.C., which deliberately encourages mergers. The I.R.C. may have advised the Government to change the law so that public inquiries are held when the I.R.C. advises mergers, but no change in the law has been put forward by the Government to change the conditions about which the hon. Member for Southgate complains. If he has any complaint, it is therefore against his own Front Bench, who have appointed the I.R.C. to bring about mergers—I am not saying whether this is right or wrong—without changing the law in relation to consultations with those who may be affected by the merger, including the workpeople.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) made the most sensible remark that he has ever made. I know that he is in a state of euphoria because the gag is off and the Whips are no longer causing him to remain quiet. He said that as the Amendment was so close in terms to an Amendment which was moved yesterday it might be as well if we did not repeat ourselves. I draw his attention to col. 1130 and onwards in yesterday's HANSARD, in which I put forward cogent reasons why that Amendment should be accepted. If hon. Members will read that column they will realise that the Government were wrong yesterday in resisting the Amendment which, I hasten to add, deals with harbours, and will therefore accept Amendment No. 66, which deals with port businesses.

Mr. Heller: In yesterday's debate on a similar Amendment the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said:
I am not suggesting that this is in any way a wrecking Amendment which will provide opportunities for long, time-wasting public inquiries simply to delay nationalisation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1970; Vol. 800, c. 1122.]
I am a very suspicious man and when the hon. Member for Cathcart says that it is not intended to be a wrecking Amendment I immediately jump to the conclusion that that is precisely what it is, because he " doth protest too much ". It is quite clear that the Amendment with which we were dealing with yesterday and Amendment No. 66 which we now have before us are wrecking Amend-

ments intended to prevent implementation of the Bill. It is reasonable for hon. Members opposite to try to wreck the Bill because they are not in favour of it. They do not like our proposition involving public ownership of the ports.
Let us look at the argument about the need for a public inquiry. I am a great believer in public inquiries on the right occasion, when they are essential and when there are elements of doubt. But everybody knows that a public inquiry about the nationalisation of the ports has been going on for the last 40 years. In the recent past the Labour Party carried out a very good public inquiry and published a report by the Port Transport Study Group. The result of that inquiry was that the overwhelming majority of people in the ports industry were all in favour of public ownership.
The Conservative Party also conducted a public inquiry in the port of Liverpool. I believe the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) came up to Liverpool on that matter. I do not remember him meeting any dockers, but he met a lot of port employers. He came out with a report which was the very opposite to the Labour Party report. I am not suggesting that it was biased from the start. I am not suggesting that before he went to Liverpool he had any preconceived ideas about public ownership. But, by some mischance or coincidence, he happened to come down against public ownership and did not believe that it was necessary.
The Conservative Party is deliberately putting forward this Amendment in order to wreck the provisions of the Bill. That is the real reason behind it. All the rest is so much flapdoodle, a smoke-screen which cuts no ice at all [Interruption.] I know that I am mixing my metaphors, but it does not matter as long as the House has got the point. It is a smoke-screen that is being put up merely to indicate that they hope that at this late hour the Government will go sufficiently far to meet them by accepting the Amendment. It would mean wrecking the Bill, and we shall not allow them to do so.
I am all for consultations with the workers in the industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) raised the valid point that too


often workers are not consulted. Often a situation develops in which workers instead of being consulted are just informed that something is going to happen, or indeed has happened. At that stage without any consultation at all they are faced with mass redundancies. That is quite wrong.
There has been plenty of consultation with workers' organisations. Hon. Members opposite the other day complained about dockers coming to the House for consultations about the Bill. They were then saying " They're all going on strike and coming to the House of Commons, these common fellows with their big boots, demanding nationalisation ". But they were consulting their Members of Parliament. That was their form of consultation. They were telling us in no uncertain terms what they wanted the Government to do about the Bill.
This Amendment is spurious, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will be sufficiently intelligent, though I doubt it, to withdraw it since we have seen through their little game.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) seemed to find something curious in the fact that the Conservative report on nationalisation differed from that issued by the Labour Party. He implied that the Tory line was always biased. That charge could equally be levelled against some Labour Members of Parliament who have the one idea in their minds that practically everything should be nationalised.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) in an interesting speech spoke about trusting Tories. It is extraordinary how many people do not trust the Labour Party, as will be shortly shown if there is a General Election.
The Labour Party describe nationalisation as public ownership. What a misnomer. The public have no control whatever over the nationalised industries which they are supposed to own. They are charged through the nose for using them and suffer diabolically when they do use them. The hon. Member for Walton laughs and rocks back in his seat. But I suggest that he goes to my constituency and hears what is being said by

some of the commuters who come up every day on the transport—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is discussing the main principles of the Bill. The Amendment is concerned with making mandatory the question of public inquiries.

Mr. Burden: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely illustrating the necessity to have such inquiries. The Labour Party should agree to this Amendment. They would then realise how little confidence and faith people have in any benefits they derive from so-called public ownership because such people would welcome public inquiries. We are not only concerned in this Bill with dockers alone, unless the Labour Party is saying that the general public are not to be consulted and that only those who work in the industry shall own and control it. This is not the case and surely the general public have a right to express its view.

Mr. Hefter: Mr. Hefter indicated assent.

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman agrees. Therefore, he accepts the implication of the request in the Amendment that there should be an inquiry so that the public shall have an opportunity to say whether an industry should be nationalised.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, when you called me to order just now I was about to illustrate my remarks by pointing out that I am sure that, if the people who now have to commute on our railways had known the conditions in which they would have to travel after nationalisation, how little of the ownership would be theirs, how few of the benefits would be theirs and how fares would rise, at a public inquiry they would have said, " We want no more of nationalisation." If the people really have an opportunity to express their views on whether there should be nationalisation, I am convinced that vast numbers of them would be against it.

We have heard it suggested that this Amendment is unnecessary because the people trust the party opposite in their nationalisation procedures. That is the greatest fallacy of all. I do not believe that the people feel that nationalisation


is in their interests, and certainly they do not trust the party opposite.

This is a very good Amendment. The people should have an opportunity to express their views definitely and specifically on any more nationalisation after the experiences of the past.

Mr. Ellis: We have been accused of being let off the leash tonight because there is a Guillotine and we can take up as much time as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is true that when this and similar Amendments were proposed in Committee, hon. Members on the Government side often sat quiet. We did that because we wanted this Bill, and I am now at liberty to say why.
We have listened to a number of speeches explaining the kind of Amendment that this is said to be. When Amendments are moved in Committee, there is always an explanation of the kind of Amendment that it is. Some are said to be probing Amendments. That is when hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to stick a knife into the Minister in order to see how he ticks. Then there are what are described as substantial Amendments. In those, great principles are involved. Then there are consequential Amendments, and those are Amendments which flow from others. I have even heard of paving Amendments, which are intended to prepare the way for others.
If ever there was a repetitive Amendment, it is this one. It is much the same as one that we discussed yesterday. However, it is also an example of a different kind of Amendment. It is what might be called a crocodile Amendment. Sometimes, a crocodile lies in the water like a log. At other times, it is liable to snap off a leg of anyone who ventures near.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) objected to the Amendment because he saw clearly that it was a crocodile Amendment. In the opinion of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, when an industry is to be nationalised and the shareholders are to be deprived of their loot, we need searching public inquiries. They say that an Amendment like this is necessary so that it can behave like a crocodile and " get stuck in ". However, if a number of men are working for a com-

pany which is taken over by another and they lose their jobs, there is no question of a public inquiry.
In that way, we have two different sets of rules. When there is a takeover, it is described as business efficiency—

Mr. Burden: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that the Government have a very large stake in shipbuilding on the Clyde, which is now declaring its intention to sack some 3,000 men?

Mr. Ellis: But that is the difference in philosophy to which I am pointing. We are discussing a Bill which provides for the taking over of the dock industry. According to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, we must have a most searching inquiry into that. My point is that in coal mining, for example, it may be necessary to consider closing certain pits. However, a different spirit applies there from that of the concept of profit which always guides right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Turning to Bristol, I take exception to the Amendment when it refers to organisations representing workers having a view. I think that the Amendment is unnecessary, because no inquiry is required among the workers in the Port of Bristol. Their views are well known.
The Port of Bristol is municipally owned. In view of that, say right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, why do we need to take it over? Over the years, there have been subventions from the rates, but never has a penny been put back into the rates. The committee of the council which runs the port has provided facilities. It has dredged the harbour and improved it. From time to time, it has made subventions from the rates. The only people to have made a direct profit in financial terms have been those stevedoring firms in the private sector operating in the dock. The ratepayers have received nothing.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Can the hon. Gentleman say what contribution has been made to the rates by the stevedoring companies over the years?

Mr. Ellis: They have contributed to the rates, of course, but no more pro rata than any other ratepayer. I pay rates in Bristol. In running the port, the only people to have made a


profit are the stevedoring firms using the facilities provided by the Bristol Port Authority; in other words, the ratepayers. Those profits have been paid out to their shareholders.

Mr. Stainton: I presume that the money put in by Bristol Corporation did not go to plug losses. It went to build up the assets of the port business. Those assets are attributable to the ratepayers of the City of Bristol, and they have that clear gain.

Mr. Ellis: I agree. The port has brought wealth, trade and employment to the city. But when it comes to money values, the people who make a profit in hard financial terms are the stevedoring employers.
The dock will still be in Bristol and Avonmouth. The city dock is losing £200,000 a year at present. The Citizen Party is promoting a Private Bill so that it shall be excluded from the provisions of this Measure, which means that the charge will continue to fall on the ratepayers. However, the employment and trade which comes to Bristol will still come. The only difference is that the private stevedores will be out of business. We shall have the advantage of having one employer on the dock and a better and more rational system. I have talked with many of the employees, and it is clear that they wish to see this happen speedily. They would be averse to a public inquiry, and I support them.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Members for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) have either not read the Amendment or misunderstood what it says. It has nothing to do with the Amendment that we moved on Clause 1, because that dealt with ports. This Amendment deals with port businesses. The mere fact that the form of words is similar to another form of words relating to a different subject does not mean that it is the same Amendment.
The proposal is that, before the Minister can take over a port business, if substantial representations are made to him by local authorities or organisations representing workers or port users to the effect that the consequences of such a takeover would be adverse to the prosperity of the area, there should be a

public inquiry. There is no analogy with the merger of a newspaper. It is not similar in any way. The takeover or merger of a newspaper does not adversely affect the prosperity of the area, or, if it does—[Interruption.] Other newspapers, presumably, can be purchased in the area. We are dealing with the National Ports Authority, which is a public concern. I do not think that we have any nationalised newspapers at present. If there was a nationalised newspaper seeking to take over other newspapers there might be good reason for an inquiry, but we have not got one.
If a substantial number of people of certain classes think that the prosperity of the area will be affected by the taking over of certain businesses—and presumably they could only do so if they produced substantial reasons—

Mr. Burden: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has a peculiar habit of sitting recumbent murmering throughout the debate. It does not impress me. The proposal is that it should be shown by an inquiry to be in the public interest to be nationalised. This is what it comes down to. This is surely a good thing.

Mr. Wilson: But it is not the public that can ask for an inquiry. It is a limited number of people of various categories.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one provision in the election manifesto of the Labour Party was that the docks should be taken into public ownership?

Dame Irene Ward: That does not make it right.

Mr. Wilson: That has nothing to do with dock businesses. This is merely saying that if the local users or local authorities think that if a certain dock business, being one of the various businesses referred to in the Bill is taken over by the National Ports Authority and the prosperity of the area would be worsened if it is taken over, then there can be an inquiry. That seems a reasonable provision which has not so far been dealt with in the debate. The Minister, in an intervention, said that there will be public inquiries in certain circumstances. But that is only if a


particular person is aggrieved. Certain classes of people are mentioned. If the person whose business is taken over complains, an inquiry can be held.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Is the burden of the hon. Gentleman's complaint that no searching inquiries have been made? In the first instance, a man of impeccable legal probity, knowing little or nothing about the docks, in the person of Donovan, made the most searching inquiries and relevant questioning of the dockers and all concerned, including the National Dock Labour Board. To say that there were no searching inquiries made prior to nationalisation is begging the issue.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman is talking about another subject. I think that he meant Devlin, not Donovan. At any rate, it was nothing to do with port businesses.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought he was saying that if a person who owns a port business has any objection to being taken over, he can raise his objection. But the proposal in the Amendment is rather wider. It enables local authorities to say, " It is all very well for Mr. X who is giving up his port business, but we do not think that it will be in the interest of say the Port of Bristol ", or whatever it may be.
For those reasons, I think that we have rather got off the actual words in the Amendment. I believe that the Amendment should be looked at again.

Mr. John Mendelson: I think that it is useful from time to time, if only briefly, that some hon. Members who did not serve on the Committee should get a word in edgeways if the Report stage is to have any meaning at all. I have always understood the doctrine of the Report stage to be not for repetition of exchanges which have already taken place in Committee, but for the House to pass judgment on the work of the Committee. We should maintain this doctrine as far as possible.
I want to make two comments on the Amendment, because I find it rather strange Tory doctrine. I will take the opportunity in my area of South Yorkshire to discuss this at public meetings

and to quote it as Tory doctrine that I have heard put forward responsibly from the Opposition Front Bench.
What the Minister said was quite clear. In his intervention he said that there is provision for any individual owner, if he disagrees with the proposal, to object, and that there will be an inquiry.

Mr. Stainton: Mr. Stainton: On what grounds?

Mr. Mendelson: The Minister said that if an individual owner of a business objected to the proposal there would be an inquiry. This is in line with custom and practice and with a great amount of legislation with which we are all familiar. We sometimes hear from aggrieved constituents who are not satisfied either with the original inquiry or with the final decision of the Minister. But in other cases where they are well satisfied we hear less about them. It is the normal legal procedure to which everybody is accustomed.
I have always thought that it would be natural doctrine of the Tories, as the defenders of individual private enterprise, to welcome the provision that the individual owner of a business who feels aggrieved should have the right to object and that an inquiry should follow as the result.
What do we find in the Amendment? Whether it has been argued on a different Clause matters not. I am addressing myself to the Amendment in the context in which it has been moved today. Provision is sought not to allow the individual aggrieved owner to ask for an inquiry, but for general organisations, agglomerations of people, after Parliament has decided, to demand a further inquiry. This is new Tory doctrine.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Am I not right in saying, regarding town planning, that persons other than the one whose house is affected can have a venue and can make representations at an inquiry?

Mr. Mendelson: No. In the cases to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it is the aggrieved person who has to take the initiative. No one can take it for him. This is an important provision. There have been some jocular exchanges this afternoon, but we are here dealing with a serious matter. The Bill protects the rights of the individual owner. This is something about which there is agreement,


and it is extremely valuable. The right was made clear by my right hon. Friend in his intervention earlier.
We are now being presented with a novel doctrine which seems to be moving almost in the direction of a referendum. After organisations have put up candidates, after they have put their programmes to the people, after the most democratic inquiry has taken place, that of a General Election campaign and ballot, and after the Government have introduced legislation for which they have a mandate the Opposition say that there must be this further inquiry if it is demanded by various organisations. if this practice were adopted we should never be able to carry on the democratic business of the House because the Government would never have the right to implement the legislation for which they had been given a mandate by the electorate.
There is no reason why the Opposition should make this proposal, unless they are undertaking an exercise similar to debates in the Oxford Union, or they are not really serious. I have been a Member of this House under several Conservative Administrations. I am surprised that those who lead the Opposition, not in this debate, but centrally—for example, the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath)—should authorise an Amendment of this kind. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) is smiling. That means that he agrees with me. He and I have been Members of the House for a long time, under various Conservative Prime Ministers, and he knows that they have never dreamed of saying that they have a mandate for certain legislation but they will not carry it through without making provision for further public inquiries to be held at the insistence of certain organisations. To adopt this practice would make nonsense of our constitution.
That is all that needs to be said about a wholly unnecessary and misguided proposal.

Mr. Mulley: I agree with those who say that the Amendment is different from the one moved yesterday, because this Amendment is even less moderate than that one. Yesterday's Amendment was designed with a view to holding public inquiries to delay the vesting day of the

ports. I am sure that, on reflection, hon. Gentlemen opposite will recognise that the constitutional philosophy behind the Amendment is a serious matter. It would mean that after Parliament had decided the principles of legislation it would be for a public inquiry and the Minister to decide whether the will of Parliament was to be carried out. In short, it is a proposition that the status of the House should be reduced to that of a parish council, and that I could not support.
There is even less of a case for this Amendment than for the other one, because in addition to providing for a public inquiry we are giving a port owner the right to ask for a private hearing if he does not want his business to be washed in public.
At the request of the Opposition we have provided for the vesting Orders to be made before ports are vested in the authority. We are now being asked to say that no Order can be made without a public inquiry. It would not be too difficult for ports users, and so on, to make representations and to bring this machinery into effect.
I reject the idea that the transfer of a particular business from private to public ownership will have an adverse effect on the prosperity of the area. It would be wrong to argue this in too much detail. I think that it will operate in the opposite direction, and that greater efficiency will benefit the area. The proposition that if a port business is transferred to public ownership it will lead to less prosperity in the area is an open question, and not a matter that one can write into the Bill as though it were a fact.
In short, I invite the House to reject the Amendment for two simple reasons. First, if the owner of a business wants a public inquiry he can have one by registering an objection to the take-over process. Second, if the owner of a business is content to consent to this arrangement, it would be wholly improper, and an invasion of private rights to allow other people to demand a public inquiry into why he has agreed to transfer his business to the authority. If these two propositions are embodied in Conservative policy, electorally they will result in a fine evening out, and I shall be delighted to explain from an electoral


platform why they are not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Minister has put up an unconvincing case. He has put forward one argument, and not two, against it. He asked why we should bother to have public inquiries under this procedure as there is already provision for them, but he did not go on to say in what circumstances a port business could ask for a public inquiry.
A port business cannot ask for a public inquiry if it thinks that the nationalisation of its business will damage local prosperity, or if it will have an adverse effect on employment prospects. It can apply for a public inquiry only if it can show that it is exempt under later provisions of this Measure. This is the only basis on which a public inquiry can be asked for by a port business. I therefore suggest the Minister's answer is not only irrelevant, but an insult to the intelligence of the House.
What we are proposing is that there should be an opportunity for a public inquiry if it can be proved by a local authority, by workers representatives through a trade union, or by port users, that the nationalisation of a particular port business could be damaging to the prosperity of an area. In these circumstances, and only in these, can a public inquiry be held.

Mr. Mulley: The hon. Gentleman's proposal is to put the legislative function of the House into the hands of a public inquiry in any area which seeks to have one.

Mr. Taylor: The Minister is being ridiculous about this. He should realise that we are not discussing a drafting Amendment. The Minister's estimate is that he will spend £50 million of public money in buying port businesses. If by any chance the report of the Bristol committee comes into effect, as a result of the joint endeavours of the First Secretary of State and the right hon. Gentleman the figure will be, not £50 million, but £100 million, or more. Government spending has risen from £6,000 million in 1964 to £1,500 million this year. This means for every £ raised in 1964 we are now raising 45s.
The time has come for us to be careful and think twice if the Government want to buy more private industries and more port businesses. We are simply suggesting that, where a case can be made that such nationalisation would damage the prosperity of an area, there should be an inquiry. It is a reasonable request and one which I hope my hon. Friends and all reasonably-minded Members will support.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 226.

Division No. 112.]
AYES
[6.32 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Foster, Sir John


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Fry, Peter


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Cary, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Chataway, Christopher
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Astor, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Glyn, Sir Richard


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Clark, Henry
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Awdry, Daniel
Clegg, Walter
Goodhart, Philip


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Cooke, Robert
Goodhew, Victor


Balniel, Lord
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Gower, Raymond


Batsford, Brian
Cordle, John
Grant, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gurden, Harold


Bell, Ronald
Crouch, David
Halt, John (Wycombe)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Crowder, F. P.
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Currie, G. B. H.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Dalkeith, Earl of
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Hawkins, Paul


Biggs-Davison, John
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Blaker, Peter
Dean, Paul
Heseltine, Michael


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hiley, Joseph


Body, Richard
Drayson, G. B.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Eden, Sir John
Holland, Philip


Brewis, John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hornby, Richard


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hunt, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Eyre, Reginald
Iremonger, T. L.


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Fisher, Nigel
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Burden, F, A.
Fortescue, Tim
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)




Johnson Smith, G. (E, Grinstead)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Stodart, Anthony


Jopling, Michael
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Summers, Sir Spencer


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Tapsell, Peter


King, Tom
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Lane, David
Osbom, John (Hallam)
Temple, John M.


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Lawler, Wallace
Pardoe, John
Tiltney, John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Peel, John
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Peyton, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
V/addington, David


McMaster, Stanley
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


McNair-Wilson, Michael
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Prior, J. M. L.
Walters, Dennis


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Maginnis, John E.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene


Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Weatherill, Bernard


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maude, Angus
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wiggin, Jerry


Mawby, Ray
Royle, Anthony
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Russell, Sir Ronald
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Scott, Nicholas
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Miscamphell, Norman
Scott-Hopkins, James
Worsley, Marcus


Montgomery, Fergus
Sharples, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


More, Jasper
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Silvester, Frederick



Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick&amp; L'mington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Mr. Hector Monro


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Speed, Keith
and Mr. Timothy Kitson.


Murton, Oscar
Stainton, Keith





NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Alldritt, Walter
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hunter, Adam


Allen, Scholefield
Delargy, H. J.
Hynd, John


Anderson, Donald
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dobson, Ray
Janner, Sir Barnett


Atkins, Ronald (Preston. N.)
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Barnes, Michael
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Baxter, William
Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Beaney, Alan
English, Michael
Judd, Frank


Bence, Cyril
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Ke'Hey, Richard


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Kenyon, Clifford


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fernyhough, E.
Kerr Dr David (W'worth, central)


Bidwell, Sydney
Finch, Harold
Kerr, Russell (Felham)


Bishop, E. S.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lawson, George


Blackburn, F.
Foley, Maurice
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
Lee John (Reading)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Forrester, John



Boston, Terence
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Boyden James
Freeson, Reginald
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Bradley, Tom
Galpern, Str Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Brooks, Edwin
Gardner, Tony
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Garrett, w. E.
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Ginsburg, David
McBride, Neil


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Golding, John
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Macdonald, A. H.


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Gregory, Arnold
McGuire, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Cant, R. B.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Maclennan, Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Chapman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coe, Denis
Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Coleman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hattersley, Roy
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Cronin, John
Hazell, Bert
Mapp, Charles


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Henig, Stanley
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Dalyell, Tarn
Hobden, Dennis
Maxwell, Robert


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Hooley, Frank
Mayhew, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mendelson, John


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce







Miller, Dr. M. S.
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Symonds, J. B.


Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George


Molloy, William
Price, William (Rugby)
Tinn, James


Moonman, Eric
Probert, Arthur
Tuck, Raphael


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Randall, Harry
Urwin, T. W.


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rankin, John
Varley, Eric G.


Moyle, Roland
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Murray, Albert
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Neal, Harold
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon A Radnor)


Newens, Stan
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Weitzman, David


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Wellbeloved, James


Oakes, Gordon
Rose, Paul
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Ogden, Eric
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Whitaker, Ben


O'Halloran, Michael
Rowlands, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Oram, Bert
Sheldon, Robert
Whitlock, William


Orme, Stanley
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Short, Mrs. Renee(W'hampton,N.E.)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Palmer, Arthur
Sillars, J.
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles
Silverman, Julius
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Slater, Joseph
Winnick, David


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Small, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Spriggs, Leslie
Woof, Robert


Pentland, Norman
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)



Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. C. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Mr. J. D. Concannon


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Swain, Thomas
and Mr. James Hamilton.

Clause 34

BUSINESSES LIABLE TO VESTING

Mr. Berry: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 49, line 10, leave out from ' thereto ' to end of line 17 and insert:
'with the exceptions of—

(i) the loading or unloading of cargo which is carried out by the owners of the trading vessels or their subsidiaries;
(ii) the loading or unloading of cargo which consists of one commodity and the process of unloading which is a specialised or unusual activity '.
This Amendment is an attempt to alter the Clause with a view to defining more sensibly the port businesses which will be liable to nationalisation under this part of the Bill.
At present, the businesses which are covered by the Bill include not only stevedoring companies, but warehousing and other assorted activities which go on in the ports. Many of these are of a specialised nature and are carried on by small businesses.
During the passage of the Bill we have had a great deal of argument about having one employer in the docks. If the argument means that only one employer should carry out all the various activities which go to make up the business of unloading and moving cargo, then it cannot be considered an impressive argument. I do not see any more reason to have one employer in the ports in-

dustry than to have only one employer in, for example, the road haulage industry.
It is sometimes argued that only in the ports does one find more than one employer in the same factory. " Factory " is not a good word to use in this context. I prefer to compare a port with an industrial estate. The absurdities resulting from the port employer situation is very much the result of too much State interference. We need only look at some of the troubles near here, in the Port of London, to see examples. According to their traditions, the docks operate in different ways. A private employer will provide his quayside labour, while the Port of London Authority will have shipboard labour. Or the situation might be vice versa. This is certainly not the sort of situation in which good industrial relations can be brought about.
The principle that there should be one employer for one activity is right and I believe that if this had been the case in London much of the jealousy, bitterness and trouble, with which hon. Members will be familiar, between dockers employed by the P.L.A. and private stevedors would have been obviated. There would not have been such a fertile ground for agitation and industrial unrest.
However, the Bill seeks to extend the one employer principle very much further. We seek by the Amendment to restrict the port activities which the N.P.A. will be able to take over. Warehousing and storage are obviously the most important


aspects mentioned in the Bill. Whatever our views about the Measure and our approach to the subject, we all hope to see the ports develop.
It is difficult to see how any effort to nationalise the warehousing activities of the ports will succeed because under the present pattern of industrial development warehouses are moving further from the ports. The disabilities which have been imposed on employers by the National Docks Labour Board and the development of containerisation—this. in turn, has led to container depots being established over a much wider area—suggest that these parts of the industry are not within the ports industry labour set-up as we know it.
The Government are approaching this matter from the wrong angle. They are galloping after vanishing warehouses. They are determined to defy technology, even though they have a Department concerned specifically with technology. They are trying to stop employers protecting themselves from interference. The Bristol Committee has figured largely in our discussion as, in commenting on the new technique of warehouses moving away from trouble areas—indeed, from areas of chaos in some cases—hon. Members have pointed out that ports are being enlarged to enable warehouses to be brought back into port areas again. This seems to be an extraordinary approach to the matter.

6.45 p.m.

I see no reason for the N.P.A. to own warehouses. If it does, we will have the old familiar story of the abandonment of competition and the absence of choice. Those who will suffer will he the port users. We will have the ridiculous situation of the authority, as a harbour body, trying to manage harbours which, in some cases, will be many miles from the ports.

Considering some of the other specialised activities in this industry, can what is proposed in the Bill really be considered the best way for an enormous nationalised industry to work Do even those who support the idea of nationalisation believe that this is the best way to solve our problems in the ports? There will be no competition, no spur to proper supervision, no real profit motive, many opportunities for inefficiency, the likeli-

hood of poor service and many other, even worse, developments.

The Amendment would specifically exempt operations
 carried out by the owners of the trading vessels or their subsidiaries ".
This would assist the Minister in working the Bill because it would save him the trouble of exempting firms which operate container berths and other advanced techniques. Tremendous technical changes are taking place in this great industry. At such a time, will the Bill help to solve our problems? After the months that I have spent studying the Bill, my conclusion is that it will not.

As the technique of through transport develops—a new development which we want to see continued—it is understandable that ship owners are anxious to control the whole process of transportation from beginning to end. This will not be possible under the Bill. This development of through transport control is even more essential with containerisation. If the Amendment were accepted the industry would benefit, remembering that some ship owners are willing to give business to other ship owners if they can unload at a faster rate. This happens today.

The second part of the Amendment deals with specialised commodities like grain. That is one example covered by these words. Probably the Minister has it in mind to leave them out, anyway. He is leaving out certain categories. Since that is to happen, it is right to lay down clearly which types of company should be exempt. That would save them from the bother of the appeals procedure. To use a phrase which we used many times in Committee, this would remove a great deal of uncertainty. Much uncertainty still exists in this industry. The Minister has accepted suggestions from us to remove uncertainty. I hope that he will agree that this Amendment would also do that.

Acceptance of the Amendment would save the Minister and the Authority, if and when it is set up, embarrassment and the complaint of intrusion. The Amendment would simplify matters, make things clearer, and isolate groups which should not be affected by the Bill.

Mr. John H. Osborn: This is a well-thought-out Amendment. I support what my hon.


Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) said in moving it. We have debated how much the port boards should undertake and how best they should handle the work. We acknowledge that they should undertake the running of ports and harbours. The Clause, which relates to businesses liable to vesting, deals with port businesses and from line 7 onwards the harbour operations relevant under the term " port business " are listed.
Each port, particularly the larger ports, has a complexity of activities which it undertakes. I can speak only as an observer. I think there is no doubt that the port businesses have to adapt themselves to flexibility which is essential in many different circumstances. Ships do not come in regularly and certain products need handling in a special way. Port businesses provide the answer to special problems which arise at short notice.
I acknowledge that there are good and bad port businesses, but the concept of putting everything under a port board cannot be justified. Manchester Ship Canal Company has devised a way of handling everything as part of its activities, but in other areas goods have to be handled in a way which needs greater flexibility. We may look on these activities in the same way as the activities of a large company which is not in the public sector. It has to look at its costs and efficiency of handling. In my experience elsewhere representatives of a company sometimes say that they should carry out their own maintenance work or do their own painting. Each business has to decide for itself what is most economical in the circumstances.
It may be that in one phase of a company's development it is well advised to have its own maintenance crew. It may be that at other times a sub-contractor who specialises in the type of equipment concerned takes on that work. In private business expenses and costs have to be matched by sales. A private business invariably has the flexibility to take the best line of action. What will happen if in the early flush of success the port boards decide to take on too many activities which could well be left to businesses outside the activities of those harbours?
This Amendment should commend itself to the Government. Certain activities could be excluded from those to be vested in the port boards. The Clause says that
 the harbour operations relevant for this purpose are—

(i) the loading or unloading of cargo in or from trading or fishing vessels which are in the harbour or the approaches thereto; "
The Amendment would exclude such activities as warehousing, sorting, weighing and movement. One of the difficulties which a future Government will face is that if too many of these port businesses are taken over into the complexity of monolithic management costs could escalate out of all proportion.
The cost of taking goods off ships and conveying them to the centre and to the consumer, and the cost of taking goods off for export could escalate. There would be no way of overcoming that difficulty. One of the main difficulties we shall have is that dockers have had one of the largest increases in wages of any section of the community. Provided that this is accompanied by flexibility there is no need for concern, but the costs of port handling and of running the port to a greater extent will include those activities which could well be done with efficiency outside the ports.
Not only should these sub-paragraphs be deleted, but we should insert the words in the Amendment. I very much hope that the Amendment will be carefully considered and replied to by the Government. It could well be that in the first flush of nationalisation port boards will take on a lot too much, with the result that everyone in the country will have to pay more for services which they may have taken for granted.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mahon: The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has conceded something about which his hon. Friends have been very dubious. It is that there could be a flush of success in the early stages of nationalisation of the ports. Coming from him, that is a concession. We anticipate that there will be a great flush of success not only in the early stages, but also in the later stages of development of the N.P.A. There is no doubt that this will happen.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: In Standing Committee we have had to assume that this


Bill may go on to the Statute Book. Some of us have tried to contemplate specific aspects of management of the ports when the Bill has become an Act. When I use the words " flush of success " my reference was to the Bill reaching the Statute Book rather than a forecast of its operation. I intervene to clarify my original remark.

Mr. Mahon: It is the duty of the Government to cover the contingencies mentioned by the hon. Member. There will be difficulties and complexities. This is a serious undertaking. I do not concede that there will be great success in the early stages. It will be a long, hard road. Anyone who saw the task of a national authority in an industry such as this as anything but difficult would be living in cloud-cuckoo-land. However difficult the task, it is well worth while.
Hon. Members opposite fear difficulties which will not arise. For instance, they say that the owners of businesses are aggrieved. I do not accept that. Owners of businesses have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. Stevedoring authorities and the owners of smaller businesses ancillary to the dock industry have been reconciled to the nationalisation of the docks for a long time. What amazed them was that the proposal was so long delayed. They appreciated the breathing space they had, and they took advantage of it.
The prosperity of our dock industry has receded in recent years because the sword of Damocles was hanging over the heads of owners of small businesses and stevedoring authorities; so they did not put their all into the development of their businesses.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his interesting remarks to the proposed exclusion of certain operations and of two kinds of cargo loading or unloading.

Mr. Mahon: It is these ancillary trades which it is expected will be impeded, will not have the right of consultation, and will be disposed of without due regard to their usefulness. I appreciate, Sir, that I must direct my remarks to that aspect of the Amendment.
To what extent do hon. Members opposite wish to impede the authority in the

incipient and later stages? Many of their fears, although they may be genuine, are largely unfounded. I believe that this development must be given a reasonable opportunity in both the incipient and the later stages. Hon. Members and those in the industry will then realise that this was the only course that the Government could legitimately and justifiably take.

Mr. Stainton: The Amendment has two objectives. The first, by a process of deletion, is to remove certain powers. The second, by a process of exclusion, is to leave out certain powers.
It is sought to delete subsection (1)(a)(ii) and (iii). The Minister may argue that it is essential to retain (iii) for the discharge of (i). I suggest not and that the contents of (iii) and also (ii) are implicit in the drafting of the duties in terms of (i).
I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) in terms of excluding warehousing from this area, in terms of its shift as an industry structure pattern.
The exclusions sought by the Amendment have everything to commend them. The exclusion of
 the loading or unloading of cargo which is carried out by the owners'
commends itself on two grounds. First, no owner will be foolish enough not to avail himself of the facilities provided by the authority if those facilities are more efficient and more thoroughgoing. Therefore, this can come into play only if the shipowner or his subsidiary can satisfy himself that he can mount a more efficient operation.
This is a matter of great concern, because the loading and unloading of vessels is becoming increasingly a coordinated operation. It is not a matter merely of loading. It is the totality of the maritime operation and not merely what happens on the quayside.
As to the second exclusion which is sought—
 the loading or unloading of cargo which consists of one commodity and the process of unloading which is a specialised or unusual activity "—
the Minister cannot deny that he goes a substantial way to meet the point in Clause 35(2), but that does not give either him or the authority the flexibility which the subsection if amended as now proposed would confer.

Mr. Murray: I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) that the Opposition Amendments were well thought out. However, it is their intention that concerns the Government, not just the question whether they were well thought out.
The effect of the Amendment would be that only businesses concerned with the management of a cargo wharf or the loading and unloading of cargo vessels, by persons other than the owners of the vessels and their subsidiaries, would be subject to takeover. Moreover, even such loading and unloading would be excepted if it was concerned only with a single commodity involving some specialised or unusual activity in the unloading process.
The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) made special reference to warehousing. All the activities listed in the Clause as it stands are part of the business of running the common main user services. It would be impossible for the authority to become the principal provider of such services in accordance with the policy underlying Part II unless it had the powers of compulsory acquisition provided by the Clause as it stands. The rights of objection in Clause 35 will allow scope for considering particular cases.
It may well be that a warehouse in an N.P.A. harbour would be part of an integrated chain of warehouses, and there would in that case, be rights of objection. In other words, if the warehouse were part of a chain, some of them being inland, there would be the right of objection under Clause 35. There was also mention made of the shipping companies carrying out either themselves or through subsidiaries the loading and unloading of their own ships. Again, if there are objections to the activities of the N.P.A. there are the rights of objection under Clause 35.
A point was made about specialist or unusual commodities, but this is a very wide definition and it certainly would not be acceptable.
For the reasons which I have given, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Probably the Parliamentary Secretary went to the nub

of the argument when he questioned the intention of those of my hon. Friends who supported the Amendment. That is precisely where the argument ought to be. The purpose and intention of my hon. Friends who have argued this matter has been simply to take the problems of transportation as it is in the docks and show that for these problems we should try to build a framework which makes sense in transportation terms.
My hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) spoke of the through-container problem, the transport revolution and so on, but the Parliamentary Secretary made no reference to that at all. He has a plan which he is determined to impose. My hon. Friends, on the other hand, argue from an empirical standpoint on how the Amendment would fit in with what is happening in the transport world in this country and abroad.
I turn to the two exceptions which the Amendment would permit to remain outside the giant monopoly envisaged for the National Ports Authority. First, owners of trading vessels would be allowed to establish their own through-transport installations on the quay side or wherever it might be. All over the world one of the most successful forms of operating, as opposed to owning, a dock, is the leased berth system. It gives capital investment to the major stevedoring companies, it gives them stability, it encourages capital to flow into the docks and creates the right sort of employer-employee relationship and good management practices. This is what the best ports are doing, and this is one of the things which we should try to encourage in this country. It would not be possible to do it, if one wanted to involve the ship-owning community in this experiment as one would wish to do, if the N.P.A. were allowed to put itself between the ship and the movement of the freight when it came to inland depots and the customers.
It is therefore sensible to allow the through-transport concept which a shipowner might wish to advocate by claiming such an exemption. It would also immediately have the effect of imposing management discipline upon the through-transport concept. The ship-owner with the cargo which he is charged to carry is


the one person one can be absolutely sure will be preoccupied with getting the cargo on and off the ship and to and from the customer as cheaply and efficiently as possible. This cannot be argued in favour of the National Ports Authority. It has a large number of other preoccupations. By removing this essential management discipline which the shipowner is ready to accept one removes one possible way to ensure that the docks in this country are operated at the maximum of efficiency.

Mr. Murray: I have already made this point on the shipping lines that this would be covered in the rights of objection under Clause 35(3)(a).

Mr. Heseltine: I accept that, but if the Parliamentary Secretary accepts the argument, he ought to put the protection in in the way we argued it and not allow it to be the rights of objection in the way that he is arguing. That is essentially a negative argument. The chances of this Government, backed by the sort of momentum of doctrinaire nationalisation which lies behind the Bill, ever listening to the practical objections of the sort he asks for does not stand up as a safeguard.

If the Parliamentary Secretary listened to the debate yesterday—which I know he did—in the two hours ten minutes yesterday afternoon—he will understand that all the pressure from his party will restrict the exemptions drawing them more and more tightly together in order to make sure there is nobody outside the net. That is where the pressure will come, and this is the matter about which we are concerned.

The second argument is that there should be an exemption for the loading and unloading of specialised cargo. Anybody who builds up a specialist line of commerce is obviously taking a great deal of risk and will be investing a great deal of capital and will find himself with a considerable amount of money—

It being a quarter-past Seven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 214.

Division No. 113.]
AYES
[7.15 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Currie, G. B. H.
Iremonger, T. L.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Astor, John
Dean, Paul
Johnson Smith, C. (E. Grinstead)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp;M'd'n)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Jopling, Michael


Awdry, Daniel
Drayson, G. B.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kershaw, Anthony


Balniel, Lord
Eden, sir John
King, Tom


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kitson, Timothy


Bell, Ronald
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp;Fhm)
Errington, Sir Eric
Lane, David


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Eyre, Reginald
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Biffen, John
Fisher, Nigel
Lawier, Wallace


Biggs-Davison, John
Fletcher-Cooke, charles
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Blaker, Peter
Fortescue, Tim
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp;Stone)
Lubbock, Eric


Body, Richard
Fry Peter
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Gilmour, Sir Douglas
McMaster, Stanley


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Glover Sir Douglas
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Glyn, Sir Richard
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Godber, Rt Hn. J. B.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Bryan, Paul
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Burden, F. A.
Gurden, Harold
Maude, Angus


Campbelt, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mawby, Ray


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp;Nairn)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Chataway, Christopher
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Chichestcr-Clark, R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Clark, Henry
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miscampbell, Norman


Cooke, Robert
Hastings, Stephen
Monro, Hector


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hawkins, Paul
Montgomery, Fergus


Cordle, John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
More, Jasper


Corfield, F. V.
Heseltine, Michael
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hiley, Joseph
Murton, Oscar


Crouch, David
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Crowder, F. P.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Crowder, F. P.
Holland, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael




Onslow, Cranley
Scott, Nicholas
Waddington, David


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Sharples, Richard
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Silvester, Frederick
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Peel, John
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Weatherill, Bernard


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Speed, Keith
Wiggin, Jerry


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Stainton, Keith
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stodart, Anthony
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Prior, J. M. L.
Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Pym, Francis
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tapsell, Peter
Worsley, Marcus


Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Taylor.Edward M.(G'gow,Carhcart)
Younger, Hn. George


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Temple, John M.



Royle, Anthony
Tilney, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Russell, Sir Ronald
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mr. Anthony Grant and


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mr. Walter Clegg.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Fernyhough, E.
McCuire, Michael


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Finch, Harold
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Alldritt, Walter
Fletcher, Rt.Hn.SirEric(lslington,E.)
Maclennan, Robert


Allen, Scholefield
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Anderson, Donald
Foley, Maurice
MacPherson, Malcolm


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Freeson, Reginald
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mapp, Charles


Barnes, Michael
Gardner, Tony
Marquand, David


Baxter, William
Garrett, W. E.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Beaney, Alan
Ginsburg, David
Maxwell, Robert


Bence, Cyril
Golding, John
Mayhew, Christopher


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mendelson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Gregory, Arnold
Mikardo, Ian


Bishop, E. S.
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Millan, Bruce


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Boston, Terence
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Harper, Joseph
Moonman, Eric


Boyden, James
Hazell, Bert
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bradley, Tom
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brooks, Edwin
Henig, Stanley
Moyle, Roland


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hobden, Dennis
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hooley, Frank
Murray, Albert


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Neal, Harold


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Halloran, Michael


Cant, R. B.
Hunter, Adam
Orme, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Hynd, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Padley, Walter


Chapman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coe, Denis
Janner, Sir Barnett
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Concannon, J. D.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dalyell, Tom
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Judd, Frank
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kenyon, Clifford
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Randall, Harry


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Delargy, H. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Richard, Ivor


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Eadlie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Rowlands, E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton.N.E.)


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Sillars, J.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McElhone, Frank
Small, William







Spriggs, Leslie
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Summer-skill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Watkins, David (Consett)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Swain, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Winnick, David


Symonds, J. B.
Wellbeloved, James
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Taverne, Dick
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Whitaker, Ben



Tinn, James
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tuck, Raphael
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr. Ernest Armstrong and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Mr. James Hamilton.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Clause 35

EXCEPTED BUSINESSES

Amendments made:

No. 68, in page 50, line 24, leave out ' which either ' and insert:
' of either or both of the following descriptions, that is to say goods which '.

No. 69, in page 50, line 26, after or' insert ' which '.

No. 70, in page 50, line 34, after Minister ', insert (i)'.

No. 71, in page 50, line 35, after company ', insert:
'having a share capital (not being a company limited by guarantee) '.

No. 72, in page 50, line 39, leave out companies ' and insert bodies corporate '

No. 73, in page 50, line 43, at end insert:

(ii) where the business is carried on by a company limited by guarantee (whether or not having a share capital), there shall be treated as carried on by the company any activities of manufacture or production of the members of the company, or such part as may be so prescribed of those activities; and
(iii) where the business is carried on by an unincorporated body of persons, there shall be treated as carried on by that body any activities of manufacture or production of the members of the body, or such part as may be so prescribed of those activities.

No. 74, in page 50, line 44, leave out and (3) ' and insert to (4)'.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Clause 36

CONTENTS OF, AND PUBLICITY FOR, VESTING ORDERS AND APPLICATIONS THEREFOR

Amendments made:

No. 80, in page 53, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert:
' restrictions for securing that, in the period between the coming into operation of the order and the transfer date, transactions which are not reasonably necessary for the proper conduct of the business are not entered into in connection with it'.

No. 81, in page 54, line 24, leave out ' one or more local ' and insert two or more '.

No. 82, in page 54, line 25, after ' harbour ', insert:
'of which at least one must be a local newspaper '.—[Mr.Mulley.]

Clause 41

NEGOTIATION AND CONSULTATION WITH STAFF BY NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY

Mr. Roy Hughes: I beg to move Amendment No. 89, in page 60, line 24, leave out subsection (2) ' and insert subsections (2) and (3) '.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time two further Amendments, as follows:

Amendment No. 92, in page 61, line 6, at end insert:
(3) The consultation under subsection (1) above with an organisation shall also be directed to the conclusion between the Authority and the organisation or, if the Authority so decide, between subsidiaries of theirs and the organisation of such agreements or further agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the measures (including the provision of facilities) to be taken by the Authority, or by the subsidiaries concerned, to assist the processes of communication between persons employed by the Authority or by their subsidiaries and the organisation or its representatives.

Amendment No. 93, in page 61, line 14, leave out resulting ' and insert:
'such as are described in subsection (2) above which result '.

Mr. Hughes: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. Amendment No. 89 is purely a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 92. The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to require the National Ports Authority to seek agreement with trade unions about measures to be taken by the N.P.A. to assist communication between trade unions and employees of the Authority, and these measures would include the provision of facilities.
The purpose of Amendment No. 93 is to exclude agreements of this kind from the requirement in subsection (4) that agreements shall be sent to the Minister and the First Secretary of State. Each agreement of this kind will be of entirely local interest and concern, and it seems unnecessary, therefore, to provide that every one of them should be sent to the Government for approval or otherwise.
In Committee, similar Amendments were proposed, but the Minister was unable to accept them, principally, I think, for drafting reasons, but he indicated that he was sympathetic to the idea of underlying them. We are grateful to him for the sympathetic attention which we have received.
Amendment No. 92 avoids putting an obligation on the N.P.A. to provide adequate facilities, because that could lead to endless argument about what is adequate. None the less, the authority will be under an obligation to seek agreements with the unions and to seek them, as Clause 41 sets out,
 for the purpose … of furthering the participation of persons employed by the Authority … in the processes leading to the taking of management decisions ".
In other words, the purpose is an extension of what is now called industrial democracy. The chances in the docks are better than in most industries, because of the 20 years' experience in the docks of joint participation, of the register, and of discipline, under the Dock Labour Scheme.
Unfortunately, when my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and I put forward these ideas in Com-

mittee, they were equated with the thoughts of Mao and workers' soviets, we were told were back in the 1920s, and all manner of extravagent language was used. Since that debate, however, some powerful and authoritative allies have come to our aid. I am referring not only to Mr. Clive Jenkins. There have been writings in some of the specialist newspapers.

7.30 p.m.

Then we had the important speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, on 23rd March, at the 334th Cutlers' Feast in the Cutlers' Hall, Sheffield. He said:
… as manufacture becomes more specialised and the interdependence of all production grows still tighter, the worker will have the power to dislocate the whole system by withdrawing his labour. This is real power indeed, and we must take account of it in exactly the same way as we have taken account of the developments of the power of the international company ".
My right hon Friend added:
 In politics you cannot get anything done unless you can carry people with you. This process is now beginning in industry. We are now moving rapidly towards production by consent—which means that management will not succeed in getting anything done unless it can carry its workers with it.
I heartily agree with those sentiments. Industrial democracy is inevitable, though the Canutes in the party opposite and certain sections of industry will always oppose these progressive developments. Solutions will be found only by consent. We must try to create a framework of responsibility within which this consent can be achieved. Agreement on proper facilities for the functioning of trade unions is essential as a means towards that end.

The Amendments are merely a small attempt to bridge the gap of mistrust in the ports industry. There is a need to involve workers' representatives before and not after decisions are taken, because that is the cause of so much bitterness. There needs to be encouragement for workers to meet in works' time rather than leaving the job and then being classified as having gone on unofficial strike. Suitable buildings should be placed at the dockers' disposal for such meetings.

We now have the London experience to take into consideration. An important series of ballots was held over the container dispute, and it was heralded in


many newspapers as a major step forward. For a change, much praise was given to the Transport and General Workers' Union. Before such a ballot can take place proper facilities must be available for the dockers and their full-time trade union officials to put the men in the picture about the issues in dispute. There is also a need for agreement on full facilities for shop stewards, those much maligned but important people in the industrial scene.

The degree of bitterness and unrest in the ports industry varies from one part of the country to another. In South Wales we have a fairly amicable relationship, and I am very proud that our ports are publicly owned. They are quite profitable, and there are very good industrial relations. After listening to the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) yesterday, and to some of his colleagues, we realise that had they been in power at least one of the South Wales docks, if not more, would have been closed by now. Our dockers would be joining the ranks of the unemployed, after the Labour Government have striven so hard to introduce new industry into the area.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: Nothing I said could have been construed to have that meaning.

Mr. Hughes: That is the practical application of the hon. Gentleman's proposals, because the type of trade that would be attracted to Bristol would be competitive with the South Wales ports. All along the line the hon. Gentleman has advocated Portbury, the mini-Portbury and now the mini-mini-Portbury. This is purely electioneering.
The basis of the Amendment is to help to promote good industrial relations so that the authority and the trade unions can reach agreement which will be of benefit to the industry, the workers employed in it, and the country at large.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The Amendment is most interesting. The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) was absolutely right when he said that he and some of his colleagues had some hard words with us in Committee on the question of industrial democracy and participation. We should draw a clear

distinction between the two issues he has raised. First, he talked about industrial democracy, participation and workers' control. Second, he talked about consultation.
Before the House embarks on any discussion of the Amendment, it must get it crystal clear that there is a world of difference between participation, workers' control and all that goes with it, and consultation, which is crucial for good industrial relations in both private industry and the private sector. The hon. Gentleman brought in both aspects of the matter as though the Amendment covered both. I do not gain that impression from my reading of the Amendment. It seems to me to be concerned primarily with consultation.
We took a considerable time in Committee discussing industrial democracy and looked at various places in the world where attempts have been made to introduce it. Government spokesmen praised to some degree the experiments in Germany, where in some industries there is a form of works council, one-third of which consists of representatives of the employees. But the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) put them in their right perspective in Committee when he referred to them as a joke, a letter without any of the spirit. We had examples of industrial democracy in Yugoslavia and India. But the Amendment does not deal with industrial democracy; it deals with the question of consultation.
We on this side can see little objection to the Amendment, and could be inclined to support it, although it does not appear to add a great deal to what is already in the Clause. The Clause lays an obligation on the N.P.A. to conclude agreements on the settling of disputes, efficiency, safety and so on. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to lay one further precise obligation on the N.P.A., to conclude agreements to improve the processes of communication between those employed in the ports and those who organise the ports.
The hon. Gentleman specifically referred to the question of facilities being available for such consultation, for meetings, and so on. The Amendment is a mile away from the other gigantic principle we discussed in Committee—the question of industrial democracy. Any endeavour to confuse the two could not


only be misleading, but could make our discussion on the matter far less profitable than I hope it will be.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is wholly a question of degree, that there is no rigid demarcation here, and that these are steps in the direction of industrial democracy?

Mr. Taylor: I do not want to go over our discussions in Committee, which might be out of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, the hon. Member has ruled that out of order himself.

Mr. Taylor: I hope that, in so doing, it might be made clear that there is a real difference in principle and that what we are talking about is the consultation and communication which every industry must have for harmonious relations. Communications in the docks are bad, and this is at the root of much of the trouble. We can get a clue from the number of labour disputes. The number of hours lost through stoppages is alarming. In 1964, the total was 129,000; in 1966, 134,000; in 1967, the year of decasualisation, it was 600,000: and in 1969, 359,000. A comparison with any other major industry shows that labour relations in the docks are very difficult, and good communications could help.
The Government White Paper, " In Place of Strife ", shows that this problem is not the same in the docks as in other industries—namely, a lot of hours being lost through strikes. There is a high incidence of unofficial strikes. The White Paper shows that, whereas in all industries the number of days lost through unofficial strikes per 1,000 employees was 84, the figure for the docks is the highest for any industry, 1,766.
It is said that other industries have similar problems but we might consider some which are often mentioned. For coal mining, in which the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has a special interest, the figure is 416; for shipbuilding it is 412: for the motor industry it is 831—but for the docks it is 1,766. Any industry with a high percentage of unofficial strikes usually has bad communications, either between employers and

employed or between union officials and union members. The Amendment would improve communications in both cases and to that degree has a contribution to make.
We are creating a centralised National Ports Authority. As we know from other nationalised industries, centralization brings remoteness. The process of decision making, if not more direct, is certainly more centralised. The Minister has suggested that the headquarters of this authority will be in London. With such centralisation, communications will become more difficult, so they should be emphasised.
The Amendment also deals with the provision of facilities. The first thing that this means is facilities for meetings to be held, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) would not suggest that if those in the Royal docks wanted a meeting the N.P.A. should be obliged to provide a covered stadium for the purpose. What he wants is facilities for the men's representatives to meet. Some such facilities are already provided —I am sure that this is the case in his own dock—and some provision can be made by agreement with the local management.

Mr. Stainton: In some, but not in others.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right. Without such facilities, meetings must take place elsewhere, thus placing more strain on communications.
But better facilities could also be given for union representatives to meet the workers. Communications between unions and men are as difficult as those between employers and employed. We should approach the problem from both points of view. Without wishing to cast blame, in the London docks, the unique growth of the liaison committee showed clearly the cleavage between unions and workers. This conflict is inevitable as industry grows and shop stewards get stronger.
One obvious reason is that the members of unions do not give enough status and support to their officials. The salaries and conditions of officials, compared with those in industry, do not attract the best people, unless they have a sense of dedication—as many in key union posts do


have. With the abysmally low salaries and poor facilities, this cleavage is not surprising, and it might grow. If the Amendment is accepted, I hope that the unions will reassess the position of full-time officials. Perhaps what is really needed is a union for union officials.

Mr. Ellis: What has this to do with the matter—how the unions run their affairs? How can the hon. Gentleman lay a condition like this on acceptance of the Amendment? Is he not going outside his remit?

Mr. Taylor: We are not going outside the Amendment at all. The Amendment deals with the provision of communications, not only between employer and employee but between the trade union organisation and the members. I hope, if such facilities are provided, that they will not be restricted simply to improving communications between employers and employees.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I referred to the recent London experience and pointed out that besides this there was a need to allow full-time officials to meet the men and put the official point of view before a ballot is held.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. I simply say that facilities should be provided, first, to improve communications between employers and employees and, secondly, to improve them within the trade union organisation.
The Amendment is a step forward in emphasising the importance of communications, and of informing those who work in the industry about major changes due to take place. This is one of the real difficulties in the industry. Changes are made, or things happen, suddenly which affect them and they are not given prior notice or consulted. Anything which is designed to help all-round communications is worth while. I would support the Amendment.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) began his speech with a long and repetitive episode saying what the Amendment was not about. Once he had managed to surface and get down to what the Amendment was about he

put forward a most powerful and conclusive case for Amendment No. 92, reinforcing the excellent case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes). We had a pretty good innings in Committee on Clause 41 and it became manifestly obvious in every one of the Minister's interventions in that long discussion that there was little if any difference between us on the broad aims and objectives in industrial relations in this industry.
We had some differences about how far and in what degree of detail we should make certain provisions statutory but we were one on the spirit and objective. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, the hon. Member for Cathcart and I are pushing at an open door when we urge the Minister to accept this Amendment. As the hon. Member for Cathcart rightly said, one of the great problems—he said of this industry but it is true of all large-scale industry and all large-scale non-industrial organisations—has to do with centralisation. The decision-making centre moves further from the perimeter where the decisions affect people's lives. Immediately communications problems arise. The hon. Gentleman said he did not think that the Amendment would make much difference, but I believe that he has undervalued the Amendment. Even if it were true, anything that can be done to improve communications will undoubtedly contribute towards a better management-worker relationship.
I do not see this as a problem of merely providing meeting rooms. There is more to it. Representatives have to communicate with their members but they do not have to do so by means of mass meetings at the dock gates. There is a duplicated news sheet that can be got out and it is there that the port authority can help, in its distribution, because it has facilities for getting things to its employees. There are many other ways in which facilities could be provided and many examples of employers in the public and private sectors who help a good deal in this direction.
I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by my right hon. Friend because, even though we may be pushing at an open door so far as the Minister and the chairman-designate are concerned, it is valuable to have the Statute


say that it is not only wages and working conditions they have to agree with their chaps but also the way in which decisions will be communicated to them.

Mr. Stainton: I regard Amendment No. 92 as wholly commendable and I will support it. although my impression is that it will not come to a Division. My one regret is that the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) has been somewhat timid in his proposals. I say this because of the disparate treatment which would he meted out to labour organisations, if we accept the Amendment, in comparison with the provisions and facilities available to the port advisory committees.
I refer particularly to page 7 of the Bill where Clause 4(7) at line 12 says that there shall be a duty on the authority:
 … to provide such officers and servants and such office accommodation as are requisite for the proper discharge of the committee's functions•".
I regard it as being very lopsided to write that into an earlier part of the Bill and to finish up now with this rather anaemic phrase. I do not mean to be offensive when I say that, but I think the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) will agree that it is anaemic. The treatment of the two bodies is disparate. This is the case in another situation which I would like to draw to the Minister's notice. The essence of Amendment 92 is to assist the process of communication, which we are all agreed is a good thing. The overriding factor in communications is information.
Clause 41(5) says that there is imposed upon the authority a duty to make available
… to those persons "—
that is, the labour organisations—
… such information in their possession relating to the subject as, after consultation with those persons, appears to the Authority or, as the case may be, ••
This puts the whole provision of information on an ad hoc basis. No continuing condition is imposed on the authority. Subsection (5) of Clause 41 will govern the interpretation of the new subsection (3) proposed by the Amendment. But subsection (7) of Clause 4 states:
…and to make available to the committee all such information in the possession of the

Authority or board as the committee may reasonably require; 
That is a continuing obligation upon the authority.
I am not commenting on the content or quality of the information that respectively would go to the advisory committee, on the one hand, or the organisation, as we choose to call it—rather unfortunately—on the other. I am pleading, Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Minister, if I can address him directly in this situation, for a continuous flow of information. I am deeply concerned about the ad hoc implications which reside in subsection (5) of Clause 41, which I think, could undermine substantially the wholly commendable objectives of the Amendment.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis: As is so often the case when the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) intervenes in our debates, he has made a very interesting speech—one which has much to commend it. I hope that all those responsible for setting up and running these organisations in the future will read his careful thoughts, which I can support 100 per cent. We are indebted to him.
We are also indebted to the hon. Gentleman in that he stuck closely to the Amendment, because some of the earlier discussion was not really related to the Clause or the Amendment. The word " consultations " has been referred to. The hon. Gentleman talked about an extension of democracy. I would prefer to use the word " participation " rather than " consultation ", because participation means that the workers are having a say rather than merely being consulted by someone making a decision. However, that is no part of the Amendment.
The Amendment, in referring to
…further agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the measures (including the provision of facilities) to be taken by the Authority, or by the subsidiaries concerned, to assist the processes of communication between persons employed by the authority …
sets the situation out clearly. I want to put on record the Minister's role in our discussions in Commitee on this point.
The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge drew our attention to certain defects. I am sure that he was


justified, but I should say in defence of my right hon. Friend that we have had his full co-operation. I am a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union group of Members, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes). What we had brought to our attention was what we knew to be true—that, very often on the docks, because they sometimes are spread over considerable acreages, there is perhaps an outlying part which lacks even the most rudimentary facilities for anyone to do anything in the event, say, of a ship docking with a dirty cargo and where consultations are needed.
It may be a dreary, wet morning, but there is no proper place for people to talk about the matter. They can either talk on the open dock, or go home to a more convenient place to discuss it. There may be a need in different parts of the docks for all kinds of different facilities.

Mr. Stainton: I ask the hon. Gentleman not to over-indulge this argument, because it can be used for not providing mobile canteens and for dock workers having to go down the hill to brew a cup of tea.

Mr. Ellis: I am sorry, but I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me or I have misunderstood him. I was saying that often there are not even rudimentary facilities for a group of people to get together to discuss a matter.

Mr. Stainton: I accept the point, but please do not over-indulge it. This is an argument as to why frequently there are not even convenient mobile canteen facilities and the dockers have to have recourse to go down the hill to brew up.

Mr. Ellis: I am saying that there should be facilities. I am not saying that they should necessarily be mobile or immobile. It may involve a question of certain people such as shop stewards getting together to discuss work on a dock where they may not be working next week. In that case, for example, the provision of a mobile office would be adequate. More permanent facilities might be needed, on the other hand.
This problem should be studied. My right hon. Friend undertook to look at the matter and we are grateful that he

went rather beyond this and thought about increased facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has pointed out that there could be the provision of a news sheet. That would perhaps fall within the terms of communication. I do not think that the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge and I are in disagreement one iota here. I think that, after what he has said and what my right hon. Friend has put forward, we can profit from examining the matter carefully. To some extent my right hon. Friend has gone considerably further than what we were trying to do in Committee. I agree that we should set our sights higher.

Mr. Roy Hughes: I put constructive proposals forward on this matter in Committee and I do not recall having the support of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) on that occasion.

Mr. Ellis: I will not follow that observation. That is my hon. Friend's recollection.

Mr. Mulley: I can confirm the point which the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) made today about comparison with advisory committees. It was certainly made in Committee upstairs.

Mr. Ellis: I am glad that is so. On these matters the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge takes a very enlightened line.
My union is the main union concerned in the docks and it will be appreciative, as we all are, of the line taken by all hon. Members in general about this provision and the fact that there should be consultation. What the Amendment is about, and what we have put into the Bill, is the obligation to hold consultations and provide these facilities after those consultations have been held. That is clear and explicit in what we are doing tonight.
I thank hon. Members for the thoughtful debate we have had. I think that we are all in unison. I particularly congratulate my right hon. Friend on the care he has taken in this matter. The supposition of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge was right. We have had considerable help from my right hon. Friend in the drafting of the Amendment.


It improved what we were trying to do. It extended it to certain other constructive things in addition to our original intention. In an industry where men and gangs change in number from day to day, there is need for a wide variety of facilities to be available. The Amendment will give us the best opportunity for obtaining them, whether those facilities are permanent or mobile or are any other kind of structure which may be necessary.

Mr. Mawby: This group of Amendments is to be welcomed. The Amendments mention specifically the provision of facilities and, more important, the processes of communication. The hon. Member for Bristol, North West (Mr. Ellis), in an intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), said that communications within a union were irrelevant to the Amendment. I believe that they are relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. Ellis: What the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) was saying was that if the Opposition were to agree to the Amendment they would expect the union to make certain modifications. What intended to convey was that I thought this was a cheek, because it is up to the union to decide what it will do. Secondly, I thought that this was worth doing on its own merits.

Mr. Mawby: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. On the other hand, where the absence or alleged absence of communications between the elected official of a trade union and the membership leads to widespread unofficial strikes, this is a matter of real concern to people outside the union. Communications even between trade union officials and the membership could be improved if management were prepared to allow the use of notice boards for notices, information and bulletins.
The backward attitude of many industrial establishments makes the job of the trade union official much more difficult. If the union membership were in command of all the facts they would not be led by the nose. This is a matter of balance, and of the employers and the

trade unions looking seriously at the whole question of communications.
We cannot ignore communications within the union. It would be nonsense for the N.P.A. to have continuing consultations with elected trade union leaders if the trade union leaders had no contact with their membership. There must be a proper communications system from the management level of the N.P.A. to every employee in the docks, backed up by a similar system of communication between union officials and members.

8.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) said in an intervention that it was a matter of degree how far one should go with industrial democracy, and he saw this as a step in the right direction. Even if the Amendment is not accepted, the N.P.A. in its discussions would be concerned with the two matters dealt with. Anyone with a knowledge of the docks knows that problems arise and the men may have no facilities for meeting at the time when a decision has to be made. It may be a rainy day, there may be no covered area in which the men can meet to discuss the problem, and they may decide to leave their work and go to the nearest pub. From that point on the men may be in dispute, whereas had facilities been available the outcome might have been different. The buildings need not be palatial; only reasonable facilities would be needed.

The number of man hours lost in unofficial strikes shows how important is the process of communication. The hours lost from this cause could be reduced if communications were improved. The system of communication must flow in all directions. The mere issue of a news sheet will not break down all the barriers and prevent people taking industrial action, but it will go some way towards it.

The Amendments are not world shattering, but they bring in two new factors which it would be as well to spell out in the Bill, although, even if the Amendments are not accepted, those two items would be given high priority by any sensible group of managers.

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo)


and for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) for the kind things they have had to say both in Committee and since about my attitude to this matter. An Amendment in similar terms in Committee was not suitable in form, and I said that I would discuss the matter with my hon. Friends with a view to suggesting lines on which a new Amendment could be put forward.
Since my hon. Friends were a little taken to task by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), I would explain that the enthusiasm has always been that of my hon. Friends and the caution has always been mine. This, like some other proposals which have emerged, is a marriage of enthusiasm and prudence and on the whole works fairly well.
The impressive unanimity at this closing stage of the Bill on the matter of industrial relations is important and significant. I agree with the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) that it is not a world-shattering event that we should wish to write this provision into the Bill. I am sure that, like all other good managements and trade unions, they will discuss facilities and perhaps even communication processes. We need to raise the sights of those concerned, particularly on the trade union side, so that they should not be arguing about the adequacy of facilities at meetings, but about the outcome of those meetings.
The leaders on both sides should discuss how these matters are to be worked out and conveyed to people on the shop floor, or in this case in the docks, so that they know what is going on. There is an obligation on management, which is not always carried out, to see that the lower levels of management know what is going on. We hope that these matters will be discussed between the two sides and not taken for granted.

Mr. Stainton: Would the Minister deal with my point about the availability of information? As I see it, the N.P.A's subsidiaries would be hog-tied by subsection (5), which is essentially on an ad hoc basis.

Mr. Mulley: I took a full note of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I was preserving for him a place of honour to conclude my remarks. As so often in our rather long deliberations on the Bill, he has illuminated dark passages. His

approach has been constructive and will be noted on both sides of the industry engaged in consultations and negotiations.
I agree on his first point about accommodation, that there is a difference between the provision of an office and staff for the advisory councils as against what is proposed for the trade union organisation of workers, but that is not excluded. The whole concept of Clause 41, indeed my own thinking, is that if there is to be participation and consultation the basic essential is that they should consult about the way those consultations should be carried out so that the people who are to participate in management should be brought in on a proper basis. This does not have to be written into a Statute or prejudged in a circular. It has to be worked out with the people concerned.
We cannot bring the Ports Authority, even less the port boards, into this arrangement until we have the authority of Parliament to set them up. This can only happen when the Bill has received the Royal Assent. Clearly, they have views and must be brought in. Equally, the trade union side will want to be brought in. Nobody else will provide the advisory councils and statutory bodies with offices or staff. I am not sure that my friends in the trade union movement would welcome it if I tried to write into the Bill how they should run their affairs. That is why there is a proper difference between what is provided for advisory councils and what is provided in these provisions.
I am sure that Clause 41 does not rule out the provision of an office in a particular port board's area if it is thought to be a convenient and proper arrangement for the shop stewards, or full-time officials, or whatever is worked out by agreement between the two sides. Equally, I am certain that if joint committees are agreed upon, proper arrangements will be made not only to service them with accommodation but also information.
I accept what the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge said, that subsection (6) is a little mealy-mouthed. But if it is to be argued whether management or unions should conform to subsection (5) or (6), or whatever it may be, there will be no real consultation or participation at all. All that we can do is to provide the framework to start with. Industrial relations in the ports industry'


are, after all, concerned very much with human relations and so much depends on the attitude and the relations which exist between the people involved. Just as on the management side they have a great deal to gain, I am certain that those on the workers' side will realise that rights also mean duties and that as they increasingly participate in management decisions and the affairs of the industry they will have to accept increased responsibility.
This can only be worked out by the people involved. It cannot be done by legislation. If good management could be brought about by an Act of Parliament, then we could sit all night, with a guillotine Motion, and as a result all our industries would be well managed and our economic problems disappear. However, the situation is much more difficult than that. What we are trying to do in the Bill, and certainly in this Amendment, is to help to provide the framework. Nobody would say that they knew all the answers, or that if they did they could be written into a Schedule as part of the Bill.
I am happy to recommend this Amendment to the House, and would thank my hon. Friends for the trouble they have taken to devise it.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The Minister got it absolutely right in his concluding remarks when he said that management is a complicated business. This Amendment, indeed the Clause in which it is embodied and the whole of Part III of the Bill, will be irrelevant to the success or failure of the labour relations of the Ports Authority. I was glad that the advisory committees came into the discussions because they too will be irrelevant to the success or failure of the Authority.
My own view, which we argued in one of the best debates which took place in Committee, is that the clue to this subject of industrial relations lies in the managers and their determination to apply practices that will bring about the sort of things we all wish to see. If they are able to persuade the trade unions and employers within the docks that they are sincere and that their proposals are designed to achieve harmony, a high level

of earnings, and the right consultative processes, they will earn the respect and support of the people they are to lead and encourage. The crucial decision the Minister must make is the appointment of the people who will have the responsibility for administering this Bill, if vesting date is ever reached and it appears on the Statute Book.
I would ask a general question, which is whether the obsessive desire to interfere and create a great paraphernalia of checks and counter-checks, controls and statutory distinctions will make the job of the managers easier or harder.
Again, I do not think that there is an answer to this question. It will then depend on whether those leading the employees in the docks want the system to work. That is where the ultimate responsibility will lie. If people on both sides who today find opportunities to make difficulties in the docks turn their attention away from niggling over piece work and bad conditions to niggling over this Measure, there will be trouble in the docks. It depends on whether they want trouble or whether they are determined to try and find a new harmony. That will not be legislated for in this House. It will require a change of heart on the part of all those involved, and it is a major challenge to them.
I only hope that everyone will understand the need for this change of heart and that we shall hear fewer attempts from hon. Gentlemen opposite to stir up the stories and images of 20 or 30 years ago as they have no relevance to what our docks will be like in 20 years' time. I am always disappointed to see how impossible it is to have any discussion about the management structure that we want without a repetition of the bitter memories and deep hatreds, as though they will all disappear with the passing of an Act of Parliament.
They will not stop. They will disappear only if the people elected by those who work in the docks make up their minds to look for harmony in our docks. We will not find that in this legislation or in anything said in this House. It depends on the determination of those who lead the unions to seek a way of bringing harmony to our docks and, at the same time, on finding the managers who can work in partnership with them.
It does not matter how many consultative committees there are, or how much money is spent on additional facilities. It will not work if the people concerned do not want to it to. It could be made to work with or without this legislation. The indispensable quality will be a change of heart. That is what is required and what is missing. We must all search our consciences to see the sort of contribution that we have made to achieving that indispensable factor.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move Amendment No. 91, in page 60, line 38, leave out ' affecting' and insert ' to improve or maintain '.
This is a simple, drafting Amendment. In Committee we had a discussion about whether the words " affecting efficiency " might not be misconstrued. Obviously we all wanted to improve efficiency, but it was pointed out that in certain circumstances there might be a problem of maintaining efficiency, and that that could be the right combination.
I am indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), who made the suggestion in Committee, and, since we did not have this form of words before us at the time, I thought it right to introduce it now.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: As the Minister has said, this is a matter that we discussed in Committee. We put forward a suggestion which, for drafting reasons, he was unable to accept. I am glad that he has found a suitable compromise, and we give the Amendment our full support.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 92, in page 61, line 6, at end insert:

(3) The consultation under subsection (1) above with an organisation shall also be directed to the conclusion between the Authority and the organisation or, if the Authority so decide, between subsidiaries of theirs and the organisation of such agreements or further agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the measures (including the provision of facilities) to be taken by the Authority, or by the subsidiaries concerned, to assist the processes of communication between persons employed by the Authority or by their subsidiaries and the organisation or its representatives.

No. 93, in line 14, leave out ' resulting ' and insert:

'such as are described in subsection (2) above which result '.—[Mr. Roy Hughes.]

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move Amendment No. 95, in line 35 after ' employment ', insert:
' and the promotion and encouragement of measures to improve or maintain efficiency in the carrying on of their activities '.
This, again, is a drafting Amendment. Its purpose is to make it clear that nothing in Clause 41 will prevent the National Ports Authority or its subsidiaries from taking part, with other employers or employers' organisations, in establishing and maintaining machinery for promoting and encouraging measures to improve or maintain efficiency in the carrying on of their activities.
Quite obviously, this would be a joint purpose which the Ports Authority could well undertake with other employers, whether they be public or private employers. We all want to see written into the Bill a common concern to promote efficiency. I do not think that this Amendment is world shattering, but it will help a little to improve the Bill.

Mr. Stainton: However naively, I am bewildered by this Amendment. It commences with a conjunction, though one can probably ignore that. But it really amounts to an embellishment of the words
…settlement of terms and conditions of employment …
However, it happens to be only one way of embellishing those words, and I cannot understand why it is chosen rather than any one of half a dozen others which I could scribble out at the slightest provocation.
I would have thought that the words "
…settlement of terms and conditions of employment …
were all-embracing and sufficient. Indeed, I would go further and question the need for subsection (6) at all. The authority will not be prohibited from associating with other employers' organisations, whether or not the subsection is written into the Bill, and I make that point as a very definite submission.
I started by commenting " however naïvely ". It may be that I have got off on the wrong foot in considering the terms of the Amendment. I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Mr. Heffer: There could be some argument about the wording of the Amendment, but the fact remains that it is an important one. Too many people in this House and outside it believe that the only workers in the docks are dockers. It must be understood that there are probably more workers who are not dockers and who are known as dock workers. An important section of them are maintenance workers.
A situation might arise where a local authority had a very good maintenance scheme which could be applied to a certain type of maintenance on the docks. In such a case, it would be necessary to have discussions with other bodies of a similar kind in order to help promote efficiency. This is an important Amendment in that direction.
I will give an illustration. I had the schizophrenic role of being the senior shop steward on the dock in Liverpool as a dock maintenance worker and chairman of the works department of the local authority. The local authority introduced a maintenance scheme which I thought could be applied on the docks, and I argued with the employers about introducing something of that kind.
It is right that there should be discussions to promote efficiency, and so on. I wanted to make that point, because it is important.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) have rightly said that this is more than a drafting Amendment. I should like to add one or two questions to those that have so ably been put.
First, will the Minister tell us why this is necessary? He has said that these words make the situation clear beyond doubt. But let us consider the Amendment. We have seen how earlier in the Clause we put an obligation on the N.P.A. to consult with a view to setting up machinery to improve efficiency. In other words, it might want an efficiency committee with representatives of its own and of those employed in the docks. How it can loosely be construed that this of itself would in any way prevent the Authority or the port board from engaging in discussions with other employers

to find ways, jointly, to improve efficiency is beyond the normal bounds of reason.
The Minister is really suggesting that there are circumstances in which the conclusion of an agreement between those employed in a dock and a port board—presumably between the N.P.A. and the unions—would prevent the N.P.A. engaging in discussions with outside organisations of employers with a view to promoting efficiency in the ports. I cannot see how any circumstances could arise which might prevent the N.P.A. or its subsidiaries engaging in discussions with other employers with a view to setting up machinery to improve efficiency.
The Minister said that he does not think that it will arise, but the mere fact that it might arise necessarily causes concern.
The Clause refers to agreement with other employers on setting up wage negotiation machinery. Does the Minister think that by setting up machinery for wage negotiations in subsections (1) and (2) he could in any way prevent the N.P.A. consulting other employers or employers' organisations with a view to talking about wage bargaining machinery? It would seem that the Minister envisages the possibility of the N.P.A. or its subsidiaries being in some way restrained, by agreements made at local level, from making agreements with outside organisations or consulting an employer's organisation.
Will the Minister give a possible example, even in the extreme realms of possibility, when something done by the N.P.A. or its subsidiaries under subsection (2) could restrain the authority or its subsidiaries from doing the kind of thing which he is seeking to cover by this Amendment?
The subsection, if we add what the Amendment proposes, reads:
 Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the Authority or any subsidiary of theirs from taking part together with other employers or organisations of employers in the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement of terms and conditions of employment and the promotion and encouragement of measures to improve or maintain efficiency in the carrying on of their activities".
Will the Minister tell us what circumstances he envisages, even in the extreme realms of possibility, where such a conflict could arise? In moving an Amendment which he said is to cover something


which might arise, to remove any shadow of doubt, he is under an obligation to give some example where such a clash could arise. If the Minister could give us one example we would know what the Amendment is intended to do.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: This has been a valuable and interesting debate. I have certain sympathy with the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in his argument that perhaps the whole of subsection (6) might be omitted. I confess, at this late stage in our proceedings, that in the hours that I have spent perusing the Bill I thought that quite a number of subsections might have been omitted—not because of any difference of policy, but because I find the legal language rather lengthy. I am assured that no one engaged on the Bill is paid on a lineage basis, so no suspicion of that kind need be aroused. So the key words are:
 Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the Authority …
My advisers, on whom I rely very heavily in these matters, have the great responsibility of trying to anticipate all kinds of difficulties. In many cases, we are following the precedents, as in most of this Clause, and the experience acquired in other nationalised industries. Although it is absolutely right that the Authority, like any enlightened employer, private or public, should be encouraged to participate with others in working out terms and conditions or in promoting measures affecting safety, health and welfare, there could be argument about whether, for example, a subscription by a public body to some campaign was ultra vires. It would be equally desirable that they should participate jointly in campaigns affecting not only their own efficiency, but that of industry generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), from his knowledge and experience, suggested examples of such hesitancy—for instance, a port board wondering whether it would get into trouble. The accounts are after all coming to Parliament. There have been suggestions that almost everything the authority did should be subject to an Order of the House—for instance, whether they should put down £25

towards an efficiency exhibition in Liverpool, Manchester, or Glasgow.
As my hon. Friend said, the fact that the authority could join others in training would affect not only dockers or those actually engaged in the physical handling of cargo. They may be a minority. There are also maintenance people, electricians and crane drivers, all highly skilled, and training courses for such people might be better organised on a joint basis. To avoid any doubt, it should be in the Bill—

Mr. Stainton: The Minister talks of avoiding doubt by a sort of " fail-safe " mechanism. Would he " come clean "? Is he insistent that, without the subsection, the Ports Authority could not undertake these activities? I entirely dispute that. Has he any grounds for this reasoning?

Mr. Mulley: Unless we could persuade the Chair to take a manuscript Amendment, we could not delete the subsection, so that is not the issue before us. The issue is whether, having provided—I think rightly, perhaps through an excess of prudence—for several matters in which the authority might work jointly with others, it would be right to include measures to improve and maintain efficiency. It is not a great issue, whether the subsection should be in the Bill or not.
I will make further inquiries about the legal position, but it would help all those who lack the legal acumen of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge and who might be worried about what was in the Act. Otherwise, they might hesitate. There might be a fellow around a dock board table who said, " We cannot do this; there is nothing in the Act about it."
This is not a momentous matter, but it is sensible and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43

PENSIONS: EMPLOYEES ETC. OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY, ETC.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 67, line 18, leave out subsection (14) and insert:
(14) Where the National Ports Authority propose to establish a pension scheme or to alter any pension scheme maintained by them,


then, unless their proposals for that purpose are settled by negotiation through such machinery as is mentioned in section 41(2) of this Act, they shall when framing them consult—

(a) in the case of proposals for the establishment of a scheme, the persons intended or expected to participate in the scheme or some person or organisation appearing to the Authority to be appropriate as representing those persons; or
(b) in the case of proposals for the alteration of a scheme—

(i) the participants in the scheme or some person or organisation appearing to the Authority to be appropriate as representing the participants; and
(ii) where applicable, the persons intended or expected to become participants in the scheme as a result of the proposed alteration, or some persons or organisation appearing to the Authority to be appropriate as representing those persons.
(15) Where the National Ports Authority propose to establish any contributory pension scheme in which the number of participants is intended or expected to be substantial, their proposals for that purpose shall include provision for the scheme to be administered by a body so constituted as to secure that not less than half its members are participants in the scheme.
(16) Where the National Ports Authority propose to alter any contributory pension scheme maintained by them in which the number of participants is substantial or is expected to become so if the proposed alterations are made, then, unless the scheme already provides for the scheme to be administered by a body constituted as mentioned in subsection (15) above, the Authority's proposals for the alteration of the scheme shall include provisions for making it so provide.
(17) Subsection (9) above shall (subject as mentioned in subsection (10) above) have effect in relation to subsections (14), (15) and (16) above as it applies in relation to subsections (2). (3) and (8) above; and nothing in subsections (12) to (16) above or this subsection shall be taken to prejudice the Minister's powers under subsections (I) to (II) above.
I think that it will be convenient if, with this Amendment, we take Amendment No. 97, in page 63, line 10,
That Clause 43, as amended, be divided: and that subsections (1) to (11) do constitute Clause 43 and that the subsections which follow subsection (11) be another Clause.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): So be it.

Mr. Mulley: This is a rather formidable Amendment, but it is not really as complex as it seems. Those who were present in Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr.

Mikardo) moved an Amendment to give effect to the principles now set out in subsection (14). I accepted the Amendment, but I now find that there will be presentational and drafting difficulties. A powerful unanimity emerged in Committee. Faced with a coalition of the hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), on the one side, and my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp), on the other, I thought that it was wise to add the provision to the Bill there and then.
However, further study has shown that there would be difficulties for some pension schemes if we were to leave the Bill in its present form. I have discussed this with my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, and I think that what we now propose will avoid some of the difficulties which could otherwise arise, while preserving the principle to which the Committee unanimously attached importance. I think that the Bill will be improved by, originally, the initiative of back benchers on both sides of the Committee, and now by these Amendments. They will avoid difficulties for a wide range of schemes when the Authority takes over.
The purpose of Amendment No. 97 is to divide the Clause, which has become very long, into two parts.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I appreciate that the Minister's intention is to implement the wishes of the Committee. We cannot at this stage really query the Amendment, and I should not go to the length of suggesting that we should oppose it, but this is almost a dog's breakfast. Subsection (17) says:
 Subsection (9) above shall (subject as mentioned in subsection (10) above) have effect in relation to subsections (14), (15) and (16) above as it applies in relation to subsections (2), (3) and (8) above ".
What does all that mean? If the Minister cannot explain now, I am certain that an explanation will have to be given in another place.

Mr. Mulley: This is merely a shorthand device, a common one, to avoid reciting what it says in subsection (9). If the hon. Gentleman reads the subsection he will understand that, subject to the reservations about subsection (10),


subsection (9) has effect in relation to these new subsections. Nothing could be clearer.

Mr. Osborn: I thank the Minister for intervening. Subsection (9) was an unfortunate choice, because it says:
 In the application of subsections (2), (3) and (5) above to any pension scheme the benefits under ".
I am not a draftsman, nor is the Minister. I know that the intentions are good, but I think it must be conceded that this is legislation in its worst form.
I query subsection (15), which says:
 Where the National Ports Authority propose to establish any contributory pension scheme in which the number of participants is intended or expected to be substantial, their proposals for that purpose shall include provision for the scheme to be administered by a body so constituted as to secure that not less than half its members are participants in the scheme.
This may be excellent ideology and intention, but can it be achieved by way of legislation in this Measure at this late stage?

Mr. Mulley: It was exactly this principle which the hon. Gentleman and some of my hon. Friends were so enthusiastic about in Committee that led me to agree to include it in the Bill, though it has necessitated this rather lengthy draft. Having associated myself with the unanimity of the Committee on this matter, it would surely be wrong to seek to exclude it now.

Mr. Osborn: I said that it was an excellent ideology and intention. The Minister has tried his best to interpret our wish in Committee. My worry is whether this will add to confusion rather than simplify the issue. For this reason I cannot entirely thank the right hon. Gentleman for meeting our request—he has admitted that this is a difficult piece of drafting—because I wonder whether we have done the right thing, after all.

Mr. Stainton: This is what happens when we get thirteenth-hour Amendments. Without wishing to be savage, I twit the Minister over the use of the word " substantial " in two contexts. In view of what has been said about subsection (15), this is obviously not the happiest of expressions, but I will not pursue the matter.

Mr. Mulley: Can the hon. Gentleman recall an occasion when I complained about the use of the word " substantial "? I find it convenient in this context.

Mr. Stainton: I recall the point arising yesterday—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was not in his place at the time—when I raised the matter with the Parliamentary Secretary.
More important, we read in subsection (15):
 Where the National Ports Authority propose to establish any contributory pension scheme in which the number of participants is intended or expected to be substantial, their proposals for that purpose shall include provision for the scheme to be administered by a body so constituted as to secure that not less than half its members are participants in the scheme.
There is no reference to the " half its members " being representative of anything. They are, admittedly, participants in the scheme, but when we refer back to subsection (14) we find that it speaks of
 some person or organisation appearing to the Authority to be appropriate as representing those persons ".
This recurs on three occasions, yet when we come to the day-to-day administration of the fund and the participation of " half its members "—admittedly, they will be paying members of the fund—we are not told who will nominate them and from where they will derive their representative authority. That is left completely in the air.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: This is an important point, but the hon. Member will recall his enthusiasm for subsection (14), which was inserted in the Bill and dealt with the matter of trustees not less than half of whom should be persons employed by the authority. It is not enough that they should be employed; they should be participants in the scheme.

Mr. Stainton: I was not the author of that Amendment, although I supported its theme. I did not necessarily concur with its wording and I do not necessarily feel committed to what is in this Amendment. There is nothing which relates the 50 per cent. representation on the governing body of the pension fund to any formal kind of representation. How these people are to be nominated and identified, I cannot imagine. There


is no guide to this. Perhaps they will be management nominees. If we think on these lines, all the 50 per cent. of representation, albeit as participants in the scheme, could be a management-loaded body.
That is an extension of the point I have been making. The question is where these people will come from, how they are to be identified so that they can play an important rôle in contributing to management of the fund. There is a related question. The Minister has seen fit to deviate from the words imposed on him by the Committee, which turned very much on the expression " trustees ". That has been dropped and in its place we have the expression, " administered by a body."
I wonder why there is any connotation in terms of potential liability for acts committed by those persons running the fund. It may be that the word " trustees " has been dropped precisely on that account; I do not know. The argument could be advanced the other way round, in terms of the expression " by a body " in agency law. I leave it to the Minister to pick and choose his words in reply.
I hope that I shall get support from hon. Members opposite in believing that the important point is that in subsection (15), although it is 50 per cent. of the governing body, shall be participants in the scheme—that is, they will be working members employed by the Ports Authority—there is absolutely nothing said about how they will be selected and nominated. Yet, in subsection (14), when referring to consultations in setting up or amending schemes, we have it repeated on three occasions that discussions shall be with individuals or persons or organisations who clearly represent the persons affected.

Mr. Heffer: The points made by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) are very valuable and perhaps we may have answers to them.
All the way through we refer to the National Ports Authority, but there will be local boards and when the various docks are taken over there will be different pension schemes in different areas. Therefore, there may have to be some differences in the application of a scheme

in one area and the application of a scheme in another area. I should like to know whether this would come under the authority of a local board rather than that of a national pension scheme. The Mersey Docks and Harbour Board has its own scheme, which has been in operation for a long time. Will it be integrated into the national scheme? This is an important point on which I should like to have clarification.

Mr. Stainton: My thought and hope would be that there will be a national pension scheme and that this will be trading upwards so that there will be no question of debasing a particular element but the whole lot will go upward towards it.

Mr. Heffer: I agree, but we should have clarification because when the ports are taken over there will be schemes at different levels. This should be spelled out.

Mr. Mulley: As was explained at length in Committee, many difficulties will have to be faced, because there is a wide range of schemes. There are schemes for ports. There are people with individual schemes, in the sense that they have individual insurance policies. The range will be enormous.
One of the first problems is to integrate arrangements into the arrangements for the industry as a whole. It is not right to legislate, or for me to decide, how it should be done. Two factors are involved. The authority must be involved. Equally, as Clauses 41 and 43, provide, all these things are to be done by consultation with the individuals or the appropriate organisation. If there is a small group of six or eight in a scheme, obviously they would be consulted. If a scheme affected a whole dock, it would be appropriate for consultation to be with the trade union.
This was why the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton), who is usually so helpful, was just a little difficult tonight, because the process of consultation which is set out in the proposed subsection (14) would decide how the 50 per cent. of members would be produced, because it would be consultation about the drawing up of a scheme or the alteration of a scheme. It would be the scheme itself which would deal


with all the very important points as to whether there should be trustees, and so on.
Superannuation schemes are so complicated, and so important and vital to those concerned, that it would be wrong to try to prescribe any standard procedure in an Act of Parliament. Taxation provisions change, and schemes may want to change to take account of that. Therefore, the authority and those participating in schemes must have power to vary schemes. It would be the scheme itself which would set out the detailed provisions.
In reply to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), I am sorry about the inelegance of the drafting. I have neither the skill nor the aspiration to be a parliamentary draftsman. I will consider whether at a later stage a little elegance can be injected.
As the Committee rightly decided to put this important principle into the Bill, we want to be sure that we do it in a way which will not in any way worsen or make difficult the situation of those in existing schemes. At the same time, we want to ensure, through the process of consultation, on the one hand, and through the fifty-fifty principle, on the other, that those in the industry will be fully consulted and will fully participate in the working out of their schemes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said at the time, it is appropriate to talk in terms of fifty-fifty representation. We have got the principle here. We have safeguarded those in existing schemes so that they will not be in difficulty; nor will the Authority be in difficulty.

Mr. Berry: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that, faced with the remarkable alliance which sprang up between both sides of the Committee—I do not know whether its members formed a group or an organisation, or whether they were still individuals—he had no alternative but to give in. This is an important step forward. We welcome it as a major concession which we played a major part in persuading him to make. I ask my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 97, in page 63, line 10, That Clause 43, as amended, be divided: and that subsections (1) to (11) do constitute Clause 43 and that the subsections which follow subsection (11) be another Clause.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Clause 45

REMOVAL OF LIMIT ON LOANS AND GRANTS FOR HARBOUR WORKS. ETC.

Amendments made: No. 99, in page 68, line 30, leave out from ' Parliament ' to ' shall ' and insert:
(3) Any loans made by the Minister under the said section 11, whether before or after the coming into force of this section.

No. 100, in page 68, line 35, at end insert:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any loan to which section 20(2) of the Transport Act, 1962, as applied by section 6 of this Act, applies by virtue of section 27(1) of this Act.
(4) Any direction given by the Minister under section 43(1) of the Harbours Act, 1964 with respect to the repayment of, or the payment of interest on, a loan under section 11 of that Act to which subsection (3) above applies shall, if in force at the coming into force of this section, continue in force and have effect as if given by the Minister under subsection (3) above.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Clause 49

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS OF HARBOURS ACT, 1964

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 73, line 14, at end insert:
(3) In sections 45(i) and 46(2)(a) of the Harbours Act, 1964 (which provide respectively for penalties on summary conviction for furnishing false information and disclosing restricted information) the words ' to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or' shall be omitted and for the words ' f100 or to both ' there shall be substituted the words ' £400 '; but this subsection shall not apply in relation to offences committed before the coming into operation of this section.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we might, at the same time, discuss the following further Amendments, Nos. 107, 108, 109 and 110.

Mr. Mulley: The purpose of the Amendment is to meet points raised in


Committee, principally by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), but also by other hon. Members. All the Committee recognised that persons who gave deliberately false information, and so on, should, if found guilty on indictment, be liable to substantial terms of imprisonment, and that in the magistrates' court, a term of three months was not satisfactory.
It seemed to me that, while it is no part of my function in Committee to seek to amend our general criminal procedure Acts, there was a lot of force in the argument that in those circumstances, before the magistrates, a financial penalty would be more appropriate, and obviously, for serious cases of fraud and false pretence, it would be appropriate that they should go on indictment, where, clearly, more serious penalties would be incurred.
It seemed to me that this would meet the consensus of the Committee and would also be in line with a lot of thinking on the general level of judicial penalties. I ask the House to accept the Amendments.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I shall be brief because we have little time and a lot of Amendments still to cover. I certainly believe that so far as Amendments Nos. 107 to 110 are concerned that we would welcome these as a concession to the major and important point which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) made. However, I wish the Minister would say a little more about Amendment No. 101, because it appears to me that that Amendment alters Sections 45 and 46 of the 1964 Harbours Act and these are the offences which arise out of Section 41 of the Harbours Act, 1964.

Mr. Mulley: To reply to that quite simply, the Section which we are amending in Amendments Nos. 107 to 110 was copied from the Harbours Act. Having decided to make the change we thought it logical to make the same Amendment to the Harbours Act as well.

Mr. Taylor: The point is that in Clause 41 the offences specified are offences against the National Ports Coun-

cil. So far as I can see, in all the consequential Amendments we have made we have not removed this obligation from the council and under the Bill the council is being wound up. In those circumstances it is perhaps a mistake to take the trouble to amend the penalties in relation to an offence which takes place against the council.
This is a matter of considerable significance and I hope that the Minister will have an opportunity of replying to this. It is an important point because it relates to the question of persons being convicted on serious charges. We have no objection to the other Amendments, but it seems absolutely crucial that we have a full reply from the Minister on this Amendment, which

It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order yesterday, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendments, moved by a member of the Government, of which notice had been given.

Clause 52

COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF OFFICE ETC. UNDER THIS ACT OR UNDER HARBOUR REORGANISATION SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 104, in page 76, line 2, at end insert:
'or
(c) any combination of provisions consisting of either—

(i) provisions such as are mentioned in paragraph (a) above and provisions of one or more vesting orders under Part II; or
(ii) provisions of two or more such orders.'.

No. 105, in page 76, line 14, at end insert:
' or the earliest effective operation of the combination of provisions mentioned in subsection (2)(c) which is so material '.—[Mr. Malley.]

Clause 56

RIGHT OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY TO INFORMATION IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER OF HARBOURS OR PORT BUSINESSES

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 81, line 4, leave out from conviction ' to to ' in line 5.

No. 108, in page 81, line 5, leave out £100, or to both ' and insert ' £400 '.

No. 109, in page 81, line 28, leave out from conviction ' to to ' in line 29.

No. 110, in page 81, line 30, leave out £100, or to both ' and insert £400 '.[Mr. Mulley.]

Clause 61

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 111, in page 84, line 38, at end insert:
' production ', where the reference is to the production of goods, includes, as regards minerals, the getting of them, and, as regards animals (including fish), the taking of them, and references to producing goods shall be construed accordingly;—[Mr. Mulley.]

Schedule 1

CONSTITUTION ETC. OF NATIONAL PORTS AUTHORITY AND PORT BOARDS

Amendment made: No. 115, in page 88, line 9, at end insert:
(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing subparagraphs, in the case of each port board the Minister shall, after consultation with the Trades Union Congress and the National Ports Authority, arrange for one or more persons to be appointed by the Authority as members of the board from among workers in the ports industry, by such method or methods of selection and in such number as the Minister may, after such consultation, determine; and any arrangement or determination made under this sub-paragraph may be varied by the Minister after such consultation as aforesaid.

No. 116, in page 88, line 20, leave out the appointment of ' and insert:
' selecting persons for appointment as '.—[Mr. Mulley]

Schedule 5

TRANSITIONAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS IN CONNECTION WITH DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL PORTS COUNCIL

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 107, line 21, after authorise ', insert ' (a) '.

No. 118, in page 107, line 25, leave out unless ' and insert:
'; or
(b) the disclosure to the Authority of information furnished to the Council otherwise than in pursuance of requirements so imposed, being information which, in the opinion of the Council, ought to be treated as confidential,

unless, in either case '.—[Mr. Maley.]

Schedule 6

VESTING OF PROPERTY, ETC. OF SUPERSEDED AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE LOCAL COUNCILS OR COMPOSITE COMPANIES

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 113, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert:
(c) ' regulations', except where the context otherwise requires, means regulations made by the Minister under this Schedule;

No. 120, in page 113, line 22, leave out prescribed ' and insert:
'determined by or in accordance with regulations '

No. 121, in page 113, line 23, leave out made, by a council or company ' and insert:
' to which a council or company is a party, made '.

No. 122, in page 113, line 25, leave out prescribed ' and insert:
' determined by or in accordance with regulations '.

No. 123, in page 113, line 32, leave out prescribed ' and insert:
' determined by or in accordance with regulations '.

No. 124, in page 113, line 37, leave out prescribed ' and insert:
' determined by or in accordance with regulations '.

No. 125, in page 114, line 26, leave out prescribed form ' and insert: ' form prescribed by regulations '.

No. 126, in page 115, line 2, leave out ' prescribed ' and insert:
'determined by or in accordance with regulations '.—[Mr. Malley.]

Schedule 7

VALUATION OF SECURITIES FOR PURPOSES OF COMPENSATION TO SUPERSEDED AUTHORITIES WHICH ARE COMPANIES

Amendment made: No. 127, in page 117, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert:

(a) the numerator is the product obtained by multiplying the number that expresses in shillings the issue price of the freshly issued securities by their aggregate nominal value; and
(b) the denominator is the product obtained by multiplying the number that expresses in shillings the last quotation cum rights for the existing securities by the aggregate nominal value of the securities as increased by the new issue.—[Mr. Mulley.]

Schedule 12

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 128, in page 139, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert:
In section 43, subsections (1) to (4), so far as unrepealed, and, except as respects sums issued to or received by the Minister before the coming into force of this repeal, subsection (5).—[Mr. Mulley.]

Order for Third Reading read.— [Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent (in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall), signifield]

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Mulley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I imagine that every Minister feels a sense of relief—this is my first experience —when this stage of a Bill is reached, especially if it be a controversial and complicated Measure, as no one will deny this is, and if, as in this case, one has spent nearly 100 hours in Committee. I know that it was by no means the longest Committee stage, but I think that we made history in that, under the timetable rule, we were able to finish at each stage ahead of the timetable.
I think that it will be universally agreed that, as a result of our deliberations in Committee and on Report, we have a

better Bill. The Bill which I introduced to the House was a better Measure than the White Paper, and we shall now be able to send a yet better Bill to the other place. I thank all those who have been responsible for and have contributed to the improvement of the Bill.
All hon. Members who were members of the Committee will wish me to make special reference to and pay tribute to our Chairman, the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris)—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Mulley: —whose wisdom and patience accounted for the agreeable atmosphere which we had, for the most part, in the Committee. I thank all members of the Committee for their conscientious attendance. Naturally, I pay particular thanks to my hon. Friends. We never lacked a quorum, neither did we lose a Division, and we should all like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) who was our Whip. It is right also to pay a tribute to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) and his hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), for Southgate (Mr. Berry) and for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. A. Royle), for their co-operative and constructive approach, even though the outcome was so often an agreement not to agree but disagree.
Having regard to the length and complexity of our proceedings, it is right also to pay a special word of thanks and tribute to the Parliamentary Counsel, to the Clerks of the Committee, and to the servants of the House, to whom, I fear, we sometimes caused inconvenience because we chose to sit rather long into the evening. For my part, I express my thanks for the tremendous support I had from all the officials in my Ministry in what has been, as everyone will agree, a difficult and complicated Measure.
It would not he right for me to try to deal with all the contents of the Bill in this short debate. Everyone concerned with the port industry recognises the need for change. I would not deny the contributions which have been made by many dedicated people in the industry or the significant improvements in the last six years or so, but these improvements have


not done enough and cannot be enough while the industry is shackled with an out-of-date structure. Tinkering with it is not enough. A new structure is needed, and the Bill is designed to provide an efficent new structure. Given the drive and enthusiasm of those in the industry, I am convinced that this restructuring will bring about a radical improvement.
I have sought throughout to preserve what is best in the present structure, namely, the scope for local enterprise. The ports will be run not by the N.P.A., but by port boards responsible to the authority. There will thus be clear lines of management responsibility within the industry and each port board will have substantial independence within the central planning framework laid down by the authority.
The authority will be required to show the separate financial results of each port in the statement of accounts to be included in the annual report. These will show the success of each port board in achieving its financial management objectives and will nail the charges which have been made about cross-subsidisation between boards taking place and being concealed. There have been repeated fears that, for instance, charges on the oil companies at Milford Haven would he increased to subsidise other ports. Anything of this kind would run completely counter to the philosophy underlying the Bill, and the N.P.A. accounts will provide sufficient information to show that it is not happening.
In the provision of port services, a new structure is equally necessary. For too long, the industry has suffered because there have been too many employer interests. Steps have been taken since decasualisation to improve the position, but much more needs to be done, and we are providing for the Ports Authority to become the principal provider of port services.
I have introduced Amendments on Report to help with the situation in the newspaper, fishing and dredging industries. We have an objection procedure for port businesses not specifically exempted, under which each case can be considered individually. If a business is excepted under the objection procedure, there is provision for the authority to agree that it will not use its powers to apply again for a vesting order within a

certain period. In this and other cases in Part II, there has been useful improvements.
Among the most important provisions is the proposal for actively involving workers in the management of the ports industry. I said on Second Reading that the Bill marked a further step forward, in particular through the specific requirement that one of the aims of the machinery for negotiation and consultation under Clause 41 is to be the furtherance of the participation by persons employed by the N.P.A. in the processes leading to the taking of management decisions.
Thanks largely to the efforts of my hon. Friends on the Committee, the Bill now contains further advances—in particular, the provision for workers in the industry to be appointed to port boards and for the consultation under Clause 41 to be extended to cover measures to assist the communications between workers and their representatives.
Both these are significant, but I would stress what I have said many times before —indeed, earlier this evening—that, in the Bill, we can only provide a framework. It is up to those in the industry to take the necessary practical steps. In making these proposals, and I am confident that they will do so, I should like to repeat in the industrial relations context, the assurances that I have given on many occasions that this Bill does nothing whatever to disturb the existing structure of the Dock Labour Scheme. Not a single docker in the scheme on the register, whether or not he is in a port affected by the authority, will lose any of his rights under the Dock Labour Scheme. Nothing the Bill does changes that scheme in any respect.
Fears which have been expressed in some quarters have arisen from genuine misunderstandings. I hope that what I have said may assist in making the situation clear to those concerned, and I would be grateful if hon. Members would do what they could to make absolutely clear what the Bill is about.
In conclusion, this Bill is designed to put the ports industry into the right shape to face the 1970's. Its proposals are sensible and effective. I have seen no real alternative suggested. From the earliest days in discussion I have said,


as have my predecessors, the onus is upon those who do not like what we are doing to say what they would do. I still want to know what the alternatives would be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Not in this debate.

Mr. Mulley: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless I should like to say that it would have been agreeable if we could have heard it.
We are a trading nation and the vast majority of our overseas trade passes through our ports. It is essential that we have an efficient service through our ports and I believe that the Bill will make a contribution in enabling them to face up to the challenge of the future.

Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate, some because they were on the Committee, some because they were not. Brief speeches will help.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: The House may be interested to know that the Cup Final is still a draw. In many ways that is a remarkably applicable verdict on this Bill. We all know that the future of the National Ports Authority and therefore of this Bill will not be decided by our vote tonight but by the people of this country at the next election.

Mr. Heffer: I would thank the hon. Gentleman very much. He has got me elected right away.

Mr. Heseltine: For the first time the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put forward an argument that convinces me to withdraw something I have said.
I should like to join the Minister in thanking the hon. Member for Nantwich (Sir R. Grant-Ferris) for his extremely talented chairing of our Committee. We have now served under him on transport matters on two successive occasions, and I am not sure that he deserves our congratulations so much as our commiserations. He carried out the job with great speed and we all admire him.
I also wish to thank all those who have recorded and served our processes. They have done so with extreme skill, and I exonerate them for any responsibility for

the contents of this Bill which they have done so much to make possible. Certainly, they have served us well and we are extremely grateful. I would particularly mention the HANSARD reporters, not because they served us over and above the efforts of others, but because by oversight we omitted to mention them at the conclusion of the Committee proceedings. I wish to remedy that omission.
I would also like to thank the Minister. I agree with him that this is now a better Bill than the White Paper. It was a very bad White Paper and it is only a bad Bill. On a personal note, may I say that if one had to have a nasty Bill one could not have had a nicer Minister to introduce it to the House.
The Minister has been extremely helpful to me and I am grateful. I would also like to thank all my colleagues, who have worked for such a long time under such intolerable pressures at certain times from within and without the House, for all the efforts that they have made. They will understand if I single out only two of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor)—who I believe would say that it is a black day for something if not for democracy that this Bill should reach the Statute Book—and my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) for the immense burden that they have had to bear and which I was only too happy to pass on to them. As all hon. Members know, it is always a problem in opposition to match the immense skill and resources of the Government and my hon. Friends have made a notable contribution.
All of us were sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) left us at the beginning of Committee stage. I hope that he will shortly be back with us and I know that the Minister has written to tell him of our view.
The only omission, on a personal note, in the Minister's speech was a reference to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). Without him this would never have been and it would be churlish of me not to pay tribute to him for the immense amount of personal effort which he and his friends have put into this. They have worked with such dedicated zeal at something which no one wanted and for which there was no case, except


in the minds of a small section of the Labour Party and the militant trade unions. It was their personal determination to bring about a reorganisation of this sort which led to this Bill. It requires an enormous amount of political skill and an almost blind zeal to carry on against the facts and over such a long period of time.
I have a deep personal respect for the hon. Gentleman and I admire his tenacity. He would not expect me to admire his judgment or his personal views, but his tenacity is exemplary and I hope that in my opposition to all that he stands for others will be able to say that I was at least his equal at the end of the day.
It will be no surprise to anyone to hear that I deeply deplore this Bill. All of us on this side of the House are totally convinced that it is unnecessary, out of context and without justification. It is our view that following the Rochdale Report and the Devlin Inquiry, which followed that, there was a clear framework and indication of the lines upon which the port industry should run. That was the view expressed from these benches when the Labour Party was in opposition and the 1964 Harbours Act was introduced. It was the choice of the hon. Member for Poplar, and the Government later under pressure, to turn the ports of this country into a political shuttlecock.
They were the people who introduced the element of uncertainty into the port industry, and while I understand the feelings of those who say that as it has now become a shuttlecock the problem had better be resolved finally on the side of those who turned it into a shuttlecock, they would not expect me to accept so doubtful an argument. Therefore, the view is still deeply held on this side of the House that there are overwhelming arguments for the continuance in the port industry of locally responsible ports, that they should be within a competitive environment and that the private sector has a valuable part to play within the correct framework.
It is on these assumptions that the framework should have been designed and the future built. I have made it clear that we on this side of the House will use every opportunity within our

constitutional powers in this Parliament or the next to oppose the Bill and will do all that we can to prevent the vesting either of Part I or even Part II. This in itself would save the taxpayer £76 million, even if we do not allow for the additional calculations that would follow the acceptance of the Bristow implications.
I have also made it clear in this House and outside that in the event of Part I vesting taking place it will still be our intention to re-create a competitive environment within the ports, and I have already spelled out our policy in respect of Manchester, Bristol and Milford Haven. Let no one believe for a moment that such a policy would rest on a negative approach. I shall not trespass on your generosity, Mr. Speaker, in allowing me briefly to respond to the words of the Minister in saying that he had heard of no alternative. I appreciate that this is not the moment for me to spell out in detail any alternative that we want to see. But within the framework I have outlined there is opportunity not for a negative but for a totally positive approach.
There is no doubt that it is in many ways a management problem that we face and that, by the introduction of correct management and the granting to that management of powers to control the ports for which they have responsibility, it would be possible to build upon the genuine advances which all parties have made in our ports over the last ten years. We believe that that is what should have happened. Within that framework, there is no doubt that the private sector could have played, given an opportunity, and will therefore play, given the opportunity, a part in the continued development and strength of our ports.
The through-transport concept about which we have heard so much is the dominating influence in the transport revolution in the country and will continue to be so. Therefore there is a real dilemma which we must all face and which I suspect many of us have already understood. It is whether that transport system is to be dominated by State institutions spreading their activities or by private institutions which will fill the gaps left by the State institutions which are then pushed back. That is the


dilemma. If one accepts the concept of a through-transport system, it is fair to state that it implies common ownership of facilities that are demanded and the services in them. In these circumstances, someone must decide which political doctrine is to dominate the system. Here is the great divide. I have no doubt that, in this Bill and in transport Bills yet to come, this will be the main issue.
Let there be no doubt about where the Opposition stand in the matter. There is an issue of principle at stake and it would be wrong for hon. Members opposite to believe that this issue will be allowed to go by default or that the Opposition are simply prepared to accept the status quo in a sort of interregnum until the election of some subsequent Labour Government or whatever it may be in the near future.
The third aspect is that of labour relations. I had the opportunity to speak earlier about this and I will not take the time of the House at length now to cover the ground again. I have no doubt that labour relations in this country are influenced by matters more or less within the environment of good management, good wages and good conditions. That is what the men want and it is their legitimate entitlement, and that is what we should seek to provide, whether within the institutional framework of the Bill or whether in other ways. I do not believe that, within the vague phraseology of the Bill, that cause is served in any way. It could be misused or well used, and the motives that will make it misused or well used are precisely those which will make it possible for exactly these things to happen with or without the Bill.
It is a delusion to believe that we here can legislate to improve labour relations. It would be wrong if we should see that as a prime function of legislation within the context of the Bill. It is the legitimate prerogative of managers and men and it should be our responsibility, or rather the Minister's, to choose managers who understand this. If we get the right managers, we will not need the legislative framework created here. If we get the wrong managers, the legislative framework created here will be more of a hindrance than a help.
I believe that the electoral time-table makes it almost inevitable that the Bill will not come into effective practice before the General Election, so that it will be a matter upon which a wider audience will have a chance to vote. I have no doubt which way it will vote, although that is a controversial view and one which no one would expect me to share with hon. Members opposite. On that basis how much more sensible it would be to prevent this prolongation of the discussion and to kill the Bill tonight in the way in which it will be surely killed by a later audience.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Again, I remind the House that this debate finishes at 10.30 p.m. Unlike another place, there is no extra time.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: It would be churlish of me not to begin by warmly thanking the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine), which I do, for his more than kindly references to me. I propose to select suitable extracts from those observations and print them verbatim in my election address.
I might just secure re-election at the next General Election in the constituency which I have the honour to represent even without the commendations of the hon. Gentleman, but I should think that the combination of his commendations and what he said to the dockers—that if they want the Bill they had better vote Labour —will secure that whichever hon. Friend of his opposes me at the election will undoubtedly be poorer by the sum of £150.
I sincerely return the compliment to the hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends. We had some hard tussles in Committee, but I have seldom seen a better example of silk purses being made out of sows' ears and a presentable case being made out of very thin material than the hon. Member for Tavistock put forward in Committee. I have seldom seen an hon. Member who did so much homework as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor); and the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who shared the chores of the Opposition Front Bench, is such a nice guy that it does not matter what he says—we all love him.
On this black day for the hon. Member for Cathcart I extend a welcome to the Bill. It is no secret that it is not precisely as I would like it to be drawn, and that I can think of further improvements in addition to those which have been made, but it is important that we should have the Bill, that we should have the vesting day, and that the Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. The industry needs radical change on four grounds.
First, we must have central planning of the huge capital investment that will go into the industry. If decision-making on capital investment is dispersed throughout the industry there is much less chance of every million pounds of capital investment in the industry producing the best value in increased productivity and increased competitiveness.
Secondly, we need the Bill to set up a powerful central research organisation for the industry. There are few industries in this country whose techniques are changing so rapidly. Containerisation and palletisation which people get excited about today will be " old hat " in 10 years' time. The LASH system will create a great revolution and will be the central core of what the hon. Member for Tavistock referred to as the through transport concept. Within the lifetime of most hon. Members we shall see huge developments in amphibious transport, and much greater use of our inland waterways for taking goods out of the ports.
This demands considerable research and the development of an organisation and methods department, which I do not see being done on a dispersed basis, port by port. It might be said that for both those things, the planning of capital development and the development of research and O and M, the National Ports Council might have done the job. But I think that those tasks are too great to be laid upon any body, however competent and distinguished its members, whose powers are purely advisory. There must be an executive body to do them.
Thirdly, the outstanding characteristics of the industry, the outstanding respect in which it lags behind almost every other industry in the country in management technique, is that it is the only one I know in which management does not have the power to match load to capacity. The central job of anyone in a manufacturing industry is to decide what he wants

to make, how many bods and machines of different sorts he will want to produce it, and then to make sure that capacity is available to match that load. This is not done in the port industry as it is now constituted, because the people with the capacity do not handle the load.
In the Port of London, the P.L.A. knows what the load will be up to a point. It knows what ships are coming in, and when, because it must provide berths for them. What it does not know is what is in the ship that has to be unloaded. That is known only to someone in a dusty, third-floor office in Threadneedle Street who does not do anything about providing the capacity. So the knowledge of the load and provision of the capacity are separate from each other. Anyone who tried to run a factory on that basis would be " round the bend " in five minutes. The Bill puts the provision of capacity and the assessment of the load in the hands of the same authority, as it is in every other industry in the country, and as it never has been in the ports industry.
Fourthly, I come to the point on which the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) dwelt, about industrial relations. I agree with him 100 per cent. that what matters is the men and not the machinery, the willingness, the spirit and not the letter, the competence to understand the problem. But whilst I agree with his analysis, I differ from his conclusion on two grounds. First, I think that he is wrong totally to dismiss the concept that an institutional framework makes some contribution. I entirely agree with him that an institutional framework without the right men and right spirit will be valueless, but, given them, the institutional framework helps them to do the things they would anyway want to do better than would otherwise be the case.
My other reservation is that one of the things that has embittered labour relations in the port transport industry is the workers' resentment about the labour-only contractor, about the people who have made a lot of money out of the industry sometimes without supplying one penny-worth of capital equipment. They do not own a crane, they do not own a shed, they do not own a forklift truck. In one case that I know, they did not even own a telephone.
The telephone number on their letterhead was that of a public call box in the docks. But they made a lot of money by battening on to the capital facilities provided by public authorities out of public money, out of the wharves, the cranes, the forklift trucks, and even the lavatory. They made a lot of money. People in the docks resent this, and the great contribution which the Bill will make towards the improvement of industrial relations is that it will help get rid of those resentments.
It is on those grounds that I commend the Bill to the House, with all its defects.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there are still a number of hon. Members who wish to speak.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Let me at once declare a personal interest in the Port of Charlestown, which is a china clay port in the West Country. I begin by saying that there is very little in my remarks of a political nature. However, I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) present, because I seem to remember that it was he who said on Second Reading that he had a great objection to private enterprise when it is enterprising.
The situation in the West Country is roughly on the following basis. There are three ports in the Cornish area—Fowey, Par and Charlestown, the latter being about twice the area of this House. We in the West Country do not find the National Dock Labour Board of much assistance to us. I have received a letter dated 7th April, which reads:
 The National Board has been instructed to obtain from all port authorities whose installations fall within the regulation of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme, 1967, a definition of the area of the port as laid down by or under any Act of Parliament, Order in Council, Provisional Order or any Instrument made under any enactment passed or made with reference of that port. Consequently, I am required to obtain from your company the definition of the port of Charlestown and also to ask if you would give this matter your urgent attention and make as early a reply as possible.
Have hon. Members ever heard such drivel—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, the hon. and learned Gentleman will link what he is saying to the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Crowder: The dock labour situation must come within the ambit of the Bill, in this sense. If I am asked what my reply was, hon. Members may be interested to hear that I suggested to Mr. Trembath, who signs the letter and who travels every day from Fowey to Falmouth, that he should look at the Port of Charlestown and see what it is.
In the West Country, we do not require these arrangements for our dockers. The predominant feature in the West Country is —

Mr. H. J. Delargy: On a point of order. Last night, the hon. and learned Gentleman made an eloquent speech in favour of keeping out of the Bill that which he now wishes to discuss. He even voted on it.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is a point of argument.

Mr. Crowder: In the West Country, the situation is dominated by English China Clays. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that the object of the Dock Labour Scheme, under Schedule 1(2) of Statutory Instrument No. 1252—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing a Statutory Instrument. We are on the Third Reading of the Ports Bill.

Mr. Crowder: I would only suggest that there are consequential Amendments in relation to the Harbours Act which touch on what I am saying. I will try to keep in order. I am asking the House quite seriously to consider exempting the West Country ports from the Dock Labour Scheme—

Mr. Mikardo: On a point of order. It may seem churlish after I have made a rather long speech to interfere with the rights of the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, it cannot be within the ambit of the Third Reading of the Ports Bill to suggest that we should exempt the West Country from the provisions of a scheme which is run under a different Act. The only reference to the Dock Labour Scheme in the Bill comes


in Clause 51, which empowers the Minister to consolidate any amendments that he makes to the scheme. However, the existing scheme is not dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I attempted to convey that a little more concisely to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Crowder: I am grateful for that helpful intervention from the hon. Member for Poplar.
The china clay ports in the West Country at present employ 123 registered dockers. The E.C.L.P. employs 11,000 people in the china clay industry. It exports 2 million tons a year. Its exports, which are running through these ports —we are discussing the Ports Bill—are second to our coal exports. The E.C.L.P. is one of the largest china clay companies in the world and is earning £20 million a year in foreign currency for this country.

Mr. Ellis: On a point of order. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would speak for about 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) dealt with this point in Committee, when we established that, as the port concerned was not covered by the Bill, the National Dock Labour Board does not come into it. I know that the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred is exerting all the pressure that it can to get itself outside the scope of the National Dock Labour Board and to have its own employees. But it has nothing to do with the Bill.
For those of us who have been concerned with the Bill it is aggravating, because what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying—I do not want to stop him speaking—is not germane in any way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to keep to the Bill.

Mr. Crowder: I will keep to the Bill. I am endeavouring to do so. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) said that I promised to speak for only 10 minutes. If interventions take up five to seven minutes, I can hardly be blamed on that account.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The interventions have arisen because the hon. and learned Gentleman is not speaking to the Bill. He must remember that many hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Crowder: With respect, we are concerned with the Ports Bill and, in particular, with exports, the West Country, and the National Dock Labour Board. The Bill is all-embracing in that respect.
I have made my protest. I will not take up the time of the House any longer. I have said what I meant to say. I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will do me the kindness of considering what I have said.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Heffer: This is an historic Bill and today is a great step forward for our docks, and particularly for the workers in the industry.
The Bill will bring under public ownership the Ports of Liverpool, Garston and Birkenhead. The workers there have long waited for this day and have long demanded that there should be public ownership of those ports. They will be highly delighted, as I am, that the House of Commons has now reached Third Reading of the Bill.
We should pay tribute to the Minister, to the Parliamentary Secretary, and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I thank the hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) for his tribute to my hon. Friend. I believe that behind the Bill lies the great work put in by my hon. Friend, in addition to the Minister's. But the framework, as it were, was laid down in the Labour Party's report. After all, the Labour Party, as a party, begins the processes of Bills which ultimately come to the House in the way that the Central Office of the Conservative Party begins the work to bring in Bills. Some of the people responsible for this report were trade union leaders in the industry itself, which is something which needs to be emphasised.
I should have liked the Bill to have been more positive in certain directions, hut, when we realise that it brings 90 per cent. of the trade through the ports, and 95 per cent. of the registered workers, into a nationalised industry, we


have to appreciate that this is a very important step forward indeed.
I particularly welcome an Amendment which we did not have an opportunity to discuss this evening, but which is in the Bill. I am referring to Amendment No. 115 to Schedule I, which gives workers in the ports the opportunity and the right to have their representatives on the port board. This is a tremendous advance. It is a real step forward towards participation by port workers in the running of their industry.
I am delighted that by this Amendment we have arranged
 for one or more persons to be appointed by the Authority as members of the board from among workers in the ports industry, by such method or methods of selection and in such number as the Minister may, after such consultation, determine ".
It allows for the election of these people provided that this is agreed to by those consulted, and this is another great step forward.
I am sure that it will be recognised by everyone that decasualisation and all the things that we have done during the last 10 years, and the great advances that have been made, can reach fruition only by bringing the industry under public ownership. This will make it more efficient, give the workers better conditions, and, in the long run, make a great contribution to the economic well-being of the country.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Berry: Compliments are flying across the Chamber. I agreatly appreciate what the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said about me. If I were to put on my election address what he said, I might have to pay £150 as well. It might not be understood, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about me, and for the courtesy which he and the Parliamentary Secretary showed throughout our proceedings. I thank him, too, for the small Amendments which he accepted, but I regret that he did not accept the big ones. I think that we all appreciate the Minister's being present almost throughout our proceedings despite his other duties.
Having said that, I must tell the House that I have not been able to change my

opinion about the Bill. I still think that the taking away from the ratepayers of Bristol of their great port deserves the title of the " Great Ports Robbery ". The Port of Milford Haven should be left as it is, and so should the Manchester Ship Canal Company. The shareholders of that company are being robbed of their rightful possessions because of the way in which their shares are being taken over. The value of their shares over the last year does not matter. It does not matter whether they were 25s. or 35s. The 9,000 shareholders who have less than £160 worth of shares are not bothered about day-to-day prices. Shares are being taken from them forcibly, and they ought to receive proper value for them.
The system which the Minister is using is downright robbery, just as it is for him to answer letters by saying that he is concerned about the taxpayer. It is a bit late for any Minister of this Government to pretend that he is behaving like Robin Hood. He is not fitted for that task, any more than the Parliamentary Secretary is fitted for the part of Friar Tuck. These shares are being stolen at a disgraceful price.
It was wrong to include the ports businesses in the Bill. I tried to argue earlier, without much success, that they should have been left out. Also, Clause 29, which leaves the other 300 harbours in a state of complete uncertainty, despite all our efforts, is a disgraceful part of the Bill.
Although it has been slightly improved, this is still a bad Bill. It will disrupt this great industry at a very important time, with the development of containerisation, and so on. As my hon. Friend said, we have the great divide. The battle is not yet over. However, we can still send our good wishes to all who work in this great industry and wish that they did not have to undergo the great setback which must inevitably follow this terrible Measure.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Wilkins: It is a good thing that, on Third Reading, the issues before the House should have been so clearly defined, especially by the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who has made it clear that this has been a battle between private interests and our views on this side of what is best in the national interest—[HON. MEMBERS: " No."] This


was clearly expressed by the hon. Member for Southgate, who mentioned the Manchester Ship Canal Company, a private interest. I welcome this distinction and the definition of where the two sides stand.
The Minister said that nothing in the Bill changes the Dock Labour Scheme. I was not on the Committee. I imagine that this refers principally to the dockers themselves, but does it also apply to the Dock Labour Board? In other words, will it continue? If not, will it ultimately he absorbed within the National Ports Authority?
The hon. Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said that his party deeply deplored the Bill. But this does not appear to be the view of the major interests— the shipping interests themselves as well as the dockers. After all, they are the people who use the ports and who load and unload the ships.
It has been said that the Bill removes competition. But the competition should not be among our home ports—it should be between this country and the Continent. That is why I welcome the Bill —because it envisages rapid development of the ports in the vital sphere of cargo handling, which in turn means that there must he tremendous investment, neglected for many years, in berthing and handling facilities.
Therefore, I believe that the Bill is right. It provides for planned development under one national authority which can assess the national needs and not lust those of stevedores or other private individuals. I am sure that it is one of the greatest steps forward in the transport industry. I wish it every possible success. Perhaps I might be allowed also to express my personal thanks to the Minister and all who have helped him to bring the Bill before the House.

10.10 p.m.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I usually begin by saying that I will be brief. On this occasion I actually will be, and there is time for me to make only some broad generalisations.
I regret that I cannot engage in the amiable pleasantries in which hon. Members have indulged, no doubt because most of them were members of the Committee which considered the Bill. I was

not such a member. Nor was any other of my hon. Friends of the Liberal Party. However, I wish to convey my thanks to hon. Members who have worked hard and long to improve the Measure.
I wish, at the outset, to associate myself strongly with some of the remarks of some hon. Gentlemen opposite, notably the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), both of whom are, I know, passionately concerned with the wellbeing of those who work in the ports.
I was particularly interested in what the hon. Member for Poplar said about future prospects. He used some wise words to describe the sorts of development that might take place. I therefore rather regret that I shall find myself in a different Lobby from those hon. Gentlemen opposite when the vote on the Third Reading is taken.
Although I say that I shall be in a different Lobby, I need not remind you, Mr. Speaker, that there are only two Lobbies. It follows, therefore, that hon. Members who represent the Liberal Party frequently find themselves in a Lobby with hon. Members with whom we do not wholly agree, There is no third Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: " Abstain."] We must, on this issue, make our position crystal clear. We shall be voting on the real issue of the Bill; namely, on our attitude towards nationalisation. This is a nationalising Bill and we are opposed to nationalisation. It is possible to suggest another course, such as a partnership between public and private ownership, like B.P. or Dutch Airlines, but that would be out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would indeed he out of order.

Dr. Winstanley: I am usually right on such matters and I am glad of your confirmation, Mr. Speaker.
Although we are opposed to nationalisation, that does not mean that we would not support some nationalisation. We often do. We are not often in favour of things being brought into public ownership, though there might be a case for certain ports being taken into State ownership. However, we would require a great deal more discussion of such an issue, particularly about the kind of public ownership that was envisaged.
We do not like the Bill primarily because, in this case, it is laid down that the criterion must be tonnage. Rather than the 5 million tons criterion that is applied by the Bill, there might be a reason for taking a smaller port into public ownership. Private industry can often run a large organisation better than a small one. Thus we cannot accept the basic theme of the Bill, which lays down a division based purely on tonnage.
In the last resort, therefore, this will be a vote about nationalisation. Although, as I say, we are not wholly opposed to the nationalisation of the ports and other things, we cannot support a general nationalising Measure such as this.
I have a personal reason for opposing the Bill in that I am particularly concerned about the plight of the Manchester Ship Canal Company under these provisions. Like hon. Gentlemen opposite, I am concerned for the rights of those who work in the ports and who depend on them and use them, including shareholders and those who invest in the ports.
I regret that it has not been possible in these debates, which have gone on for a long time, to remove the real anxieties which are felt by many people about the future prospects of the Manchester Ship Canal Company; and I refer not only to the shareholders but to the workers and those who live near to and take pride in port areas. This is a personal reason why I am glad to find myself opposing hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Make no mistake, whatever our views may be on other matters, we are opposed to this form of nationalisation and we shall demonstrate our opposition to the Bill.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Ellis: I wish to be associated with all the remarks made about hon. Members who served on the Committee and with the words of praise of the Minister. I also refer to the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) and the hon. member for Truro (Mr. Geoffrey Wilson) who I have come to like as individuals while deploring their politics.
I welcome this Bill for the good it will do my constituents. There have been no fewer than four Members of Parliament

from that great city speaking in the debates tonight. It was unfortunate that on this auspicious occasion we did not hear from the Conservative hon. Member who represents a Bristol constituency. I am pleased to give support to the Bill and to the very real additions we have made to it. I thank the Minister because the ordinary workers, the dockers, will be able to participate, because of the Amendment we included and in making decisions and agreements about an efficient port.
 In the ports, trouble is caused by the proliferation of employers who efficency is not all of the same standard.
If we are to have fewer employers in the ports, as, in this column's view, we must, then there must be some form of public accountability. The ports are too important, too vital to the nation's survival, to be left entirely to the vagaries of a few entrepreneurs.
In any case, as we have emphasised, most of them are publicly owned already.
The Conservative Party may wish to dismantle the whole structure of public ownership which has been built up in this country since the war. If so, no doubt they will make out their case for this on the hustings. But it had better be a good case.
And so far as the ports are concerned, we submit, they have no semblance of a case at all.
Those words appeared in Lloyd's List on Wednesday, 11th February. They are good words and I subscribe to them. We have seen doctrinaire opposition to this Bill. We shall carry it tonight and it will be in the nation's interest that we so so.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Irrespective of what is said in Lloyd's List, irrespective of what has been said by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis), nothing can hide the fact that this is a shameful, doctrinaire Bill which is totally irrelevant to any of the real problems facing the ports of this nation.
The only case which has been put for the Bill was that put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) who, in his unique way with the grand faith he has, said that public ownership will make the ports more efficient, create better organisation and better labour relations. I wonder if he or any other hon. Member could give us some evidence of where that has happened. Did he find that following the nationalisation of steel that industry became more efficient?

Hon. Members: Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Taylor: I was simply trying to point out that so far as I am aware there has been no occasion on which this argument was proved. Even if it were proved, we should remember that the ports industry is not just any other industry. The ports of this country are unique. This is not a question of a facility for which there can be real competition with any other facility. It is not like gas which has competition from electricity or the railways which are in competition with air transport. The ports are virtually a unique monopoly in the import of goods to this country. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are agreed that the ports have big problems, but one thing that the Minister must prove if he is looking for support of the Bill is that by simply changing the ownership of the ports we shall deal in any way with these problems or improve them.
We object to this Bill on several grounds. First, we deplore that the centralisation which the Bill will inevitably bring will mean the destruction of local control of some major ports. In Bristol traders do not share the views of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West. It is a fine, very efficient, forward-looking port which is being destroyed and brought under central control. In Manchester we have a situation where a profitable, free enterprise port is being expropriated by the Government in the full sense of the term and taken under central control. This will not promote efficiency in any way.
We also object to the Bill because it is inflexible in laying down a rigid 5 million tons level which brings in the Port of Milford Haven which should have no place under the National Ports Authority. Most important, we oppose the Bill because it is yet a further extension of State control and Socialism. In these Clauses there are more powers for manufacturing, for trading, for selling, and for repairing by a State-controlled authority. In view of the enormous inroads which have been made into free enterprise by State control, the time must come when we say, " No more ". I suggest that this is where we should say it.
Apart from the extension of State control and nationalisation, inevitably one of the great objections to the Bill is that it will bring about cross-subsidisation, in which the profitable and efficient ports—the Manchesters of this world—will find that all the money they make from their efficiency and from the local resources will go into one large pool to finance the great losses stemming from Liverpool and London.
The Minister has said tonight, as he has said before, that there will be no cross-subsidisation; but where on earth will the money come from to pay for the losses which we know exist in Liverpool and in London and which will certainly continue? Inevitably there will be crosssubsidisation—not from a nationalised undertaking, but from the free enterprise port of Manchester, which was built up by local enterprise and local resources. This is being destroyed.
More important, all the security which came from local involvement disappears with the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tavistock (Mr. Michael Heseltine) said, what kind of guarantee can the Minister give to the people of Manchester and Bristol that their ports will continue to grow and prosper. I suggest that the moment the N.P.A. is established, the moment there is central control, the moment there is central direction, all the guarantees and all the security which the people of Bristol, Manchester and elsewhere have through their local involvement disappears in one fell swoop.
Apart from that, the Bill will destroy all real, effective competition. In the facilities offered by the ports there is great need for competition. We want to have a situation when shipowners and traders can have some real opportunity to obtain competitive tenders and competitive service. On the other hand, the moment a central State control is established, the moment a National Ports Authority is established to take over almost all the ports and with powers to take over those that remain, there is a situation of virtually no competition. This is a bad situation for the nation.
We should also consider the way the world is going. Where in the world, where there are successful ports, and where there is progress and efficiency, has any country followed this Government's example of trying to nationalise


and centralise? In the places where there are successful ports, where there is efficiency, where shipowners are glad to go, such as Rotterdam, Antwerp and elsewhere, there is not nationalisation; there is not centralisation; there is the maximum of competition and the maximum of flexibility.
The one argument which has been used against us is that by opposing the Bill we are creating uncertainty. This is a very novel constitutional doctrine. It means that the moment the Labour Party says that it has designs on an industry—whether it be ports, chemicals or steel—and we say that we shall oppose it, we are allegedly bringing in some kind of uncertainty. This is not a doctrine we can accept.
Time is short. It has been short throughout the proceedings on the Bill; because the Government have made it clear that it is their intention to bludgeon through this piece of Socialism by jackboot tactics at every opportunity. And so they have.
I think that the whole House and the whole country knows that the Bill is a wretched piece of doctrinaire Socialism. For the people it will be costly, bureaucratic, and extravagant. It will do nothing to solve the problems of the ports. We oppose it bitterly, and I hope that the House will reject it tonight.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Murray: You said a little earlier, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no extra time. Even if you gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) a lot more time, he would, unlike Chelsea, never win the Cup.
The hon. Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) came into the Chamber, delivered his " commercial ", declared his interest, and then left. I thought his commercial as irrelevant as most commercials, because it had nothing to do with the product.
I associate myself with all the compliments—

Mr. Crowder: Mr. Crowder rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an idea that the Parliamentary Secretary will not give way.

Mr. Murray: The hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) complimented my right hon. Friend and said that he was glad that he had always been present in the Committee. The hon. Gentleman could not have been half as glad as I was, for I was sometimes under a little pressure on some of the points which were raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins)—like the rest of the House, I am sorry that he will not be with us after the next General Election—asked several questions—[Interruption.] No, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) will be here for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South asked some questions about the National Dock Labour Board. There is nothing in the Bill to alter the National Dock Labour Board's administration of the Dock Labour Scheme. The Board's status is not affected by the Bill in any way.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley)—I am sorry that he will not be supporting the Bill—said last night that there was nothing wrong in being in the middle of the road. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West pointed out that he might get knocked down, but I would deny that, because Liberals are not often seen near anything that is moving.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West for his support in Committee, both sitting and standing. I am sure that his valuable contributions helped to put the Opposition right on many occasions.
At the end of the Second Reading, I said that it was a good Bill, and nothing said since has convinced me that I should change my mind. Indeed, the attitude and arguments of the Opposition have convinced me more than ever that what we have introduced in this Bill can do nothing but good, not only for our ports but for our national economy.
During the past few months, there have been many changes in our ports. There is a continuing improvement in labour relations, and I am certain that the progress which we shall make with the Bill will strengthen that. The Bill provides an effective framework for dealing with


many of the problems in our ports, and within this framework, as my right hon. Friend said earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), there will be changes coming about in worker participation.
Amid all the glib talk about through transport, what we are really discussing here is people, the employees in our docks, men who give their whole lives to the industry and whose families are so closely associated with it. I think, for

example, of my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Alan Lee Williams). whose family has for over 300 years been associated with the lighterage trade. We are, as I say, dealing with people, and the Bill will give people a new deal. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 285. Noes 235.

Division No. 114.]
AYES
[l0.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Dewar, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)


Albu, Austen
Doig, Peter
Janner, Sir Barnett


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Driberg, Tom
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Alldritt, Walter
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Anderson, Donald
Eadie, Alex
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Johnson, Carol (Lowisham, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Ashley, Jack
Ellis, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
English, Michael
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Judd, Frank


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Kelley, Richard


Barnes, Michael
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Barnett, Joel
Finch, Harold
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Baxter, William
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Kerr Russel (Feltham)


Beaney, Alan
Fletcher, Rt.Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Latham, Arthur


Bence, Cyril
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
Lawson, George


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, John (Reading)


Binns, John
Forrester, John
Lestor, Miss Joan


Bishop, E. S.
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Freeson, Reginaid
Lipton, Marcus


Booth, Albert
Galpern, Sir Myer
Lomas, Kenneth


Boston, Terence
Garrett, W. E.
Loughlin, Charles


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Ginsburg, David
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Boyden, James
Golding, John
Mabon Dr. J. Dickson


Bradley, Tom *
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McBride, Neil


Brooks, Edwin
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McCann, John


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacColl, James


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Gregory, Arnold
MacDermot, Niall


Brown, Bob(N 'c'tlc-upon-Tyne, W.)
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Macdonald, A. H.


Buchan, Norman
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightslde)
McElhone, Frank


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
McGuire, Michael


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mackenzie, Cregor (Ruthergien)


Cant, R. B.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mackie, John


Carmichael, Neil
Hamling, William
Mackintosh, John P.


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Harper, Joseph
Maclennan, Robert


Chapman, Donald
Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Coe, Denis'
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
MacPherson, Malcolm


Coleman, Donald
Haseldine, Norman
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Concannon, J. D.
Hattersicy, Roy
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Conlan, Bernard
Hazell, Bert
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Heffer, Eric S.
Mapp, Charles


Cronin, John
Henig, Stanley
Marquand, David


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hilton, W. S.
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hobden, Dennis
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Dalyell, Tam
Hooley, Frank
Maxwell, Robert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mayhew, Christopher


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Howarth, Robert (Boiton, E.)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Davies, E. Hudson (Conway)
Howie, W.
Mendelson, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Strertford)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Millan, Bruce


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hunter, Adam
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Hynd, John
Molloy, William


Delargy, H. J.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
Moonman, Eric


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)




Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Randall, Harry
Thornton, Ernest


Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Rankin, John
Tinn, James


Moyle, Roland
Rees, Merlyn
Tomney, Frank


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Tuck, Raphael


Murray, Albert
Richard, Ivor
Urwin, T. W.


Neal, Harold
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Varley, Eric G.


Newens, Stan
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Oakes, Gordon
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Wallace, George


Ogden, Eric
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Watkins, David (Consett)


O'Halloran, Michael
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


O'Malley, Brian
Rose, Paul
Weitzman, David


Oram, Bert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wellbeloved, James


Orbach, Maurice
Rowlands, E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Orme, Stanley
Sheldon, Robert
Whitaker, Ben


Oswald, Thomas
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Whitlock, William


Padley, Walter
Sillars, J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Silverman, Julius
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Paget, R. T.
Slater, Joseph
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Palmer, Arthur
Small, William
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Snow, Julian
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Spriggs, Leslie
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, 8.)


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Winnick, David


Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Pentland, Norman
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Woof, Robert


Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Wyatt, Woodrow


Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Swain, Thomas



Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Symonds, J. B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Taveme, Dick
Mr. Ernest G. Perry and


Price, William (Rugby)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.


Probert, Arthur
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Corfield, F. V.
Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Costain, A. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hastings, Stephen


Astor, John
Crouch, David
Hawkins, Paul


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Crowder, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Awdry, Daniel
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Heseltine, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (Acton)
Currie, G. B. H.
Higgins, Terence L.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hiley, Joseph


Balniel, Lord
Dance, James
Hill, J. E. B.


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Batsford, Brian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Dean, Paul
Holland, Philip


Bell, Ronald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hordern. Peter


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Hunt, John


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Doughty, Charles
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Biffen, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Iremonger, T. L.


Biggs-Davison, John
Drayson, G. B.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
du Caral, Rt. Hn. Edward
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Black, Sir Cyril
Eden, Sir John 
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Blaker, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Emery, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Body, Richard
Errington, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Eyre, Reginald
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Farr, John
Kershaw, Anthony


Braine, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Brewis, John
Fletchrer-Cooke, Charles
Kirk, Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Fortescue, Tim
Kitson, Timothy


Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter
Fortescue, Tim
King, Tom


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Stone)
Lambton, Antony


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Fry, Peter Galbratth, Hn. T. G.
Lancaster, Col. C. C.


Bryan, Paul
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Lane, David


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lawler, Wallace


Bullus, Sir Eric
Glyn, Sir Richard
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Burden, F, A.
Godner, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Cary, Sir Robert
Grant, Anthony
Lubbock, Eric


Channon, H. P. G.
Grant-Ferris, Sir Robert
MacArthur, Ian


Chataway, Christopher
Grieve, Percy
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Clark, Henry
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Clegg, Walter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McMaster, Stanley


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)







Maddan, Martin
Peyton, John
Tapsell, Peter


Maginnis, John E.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Marten, Neil
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Temple, John M.


Maude, Angus
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Tilney, John


Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Prior, J. M. L.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Mawby, Ray
Pym, Francis
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Vickers, Dame Joan


Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Waddington, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Walnwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Monro, Hector
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Wall, Patrick


Montgomery, Fergus
Ridsdale, Julian
Walters, Dennis


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Ward, Christopher (Swindon)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Ward, Dame Irene


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Royle, Anthony
Weather ill, Bernard


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Russelt, Sir Ronald
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Murton, Oscar
Scott, Nicholas
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Scott-Hopkins, James
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Neave, Alrey
Sharples, Richard
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; whitby)
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Silvester, Frederick
Woodnutt, Mark


Nott, John
Sinclair, Sir George
Worsley, Marcus


Onslow, Cranley
Smith, Dudley (Wwick &amp; L'mington)
Wright, Esmond


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
Wylie, N. R.


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Speed, Keith
Younger, Hn. George


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Stainton, Keith



Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Stodart, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Peel, John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Percival, Ian
Summers, Sir Spencer
Mr. Jasper More.


Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

GRETNA STATE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: This debate really starts off with the Defence of the Realm Act, 1915, whose Second Reading I am sure the Minister has read, goes on through the Licensing Acts passed between 1921 and 1962, and includes the Royal Commission which sat in 1931 and 1932 and recommended that State management in Scotland should be discontinued.
We know that there was a special reason for the institution of State management in 1916. It was to restrict the consumption of alcohol by munitions workers. But the Gretna and Annan area has long since lost its enthusiasm, if it ever had any, for being a guinea pig for a social experiment in which the Government control hotels and public houses. All Governments—I emphasise " all "—have missed opportunities to right what we must now accept to be an anomaly.
We must accept, too, that attitudes have changed and that the area would be very much happier to leave the issue of licences to the local licensing court. In passing, I would remark that the grocers locally have always felt that they have a legitimate grouse that their off-licences were not returned to them after the First World War. This large area of about 15,000 people is served by 15 hotels and public houses. I want to raise two issues. The first is Government policy towards development of the area in regard to hotels and particularly tourism. The second is the construction of the new hotel by the Government in Annan. Gretna and the whole of Dumfries-shire is the gateway to Scotland and I would also put in a word for Galloway, which is becoming a greater tourist centre as the M6 reaches the Scottish border. I have said for years that, when this important new carriageway reaches the border, we can expect a tourist explosion into the south of

Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the R6-A74 carries by far the most traffic into Scotland of all roads, and the development potential here is enormous.
Rightly, the Scottish Tourist Board has been pressing local hoteliers to develop their tourist attractions in every possible way and to be geared up for the expected influx of tourists. The local hoteliers want to respond to this request. Yet the Secretary of State, because of his powers of veto, is able to prevent these hotels holding full hotel licences.
Gretna Green is an internationally known place, yet the State Management District is doing very little about it, except saying " No ". In this huge area of the eastern part of Dumfriesshire, we have two hotels in Annan, one in Pow-foot, one in Ecclefechan, and one in Canonbie. All have full hotel licences and are owned by the State management. There is no hotel with a full licence in Gretna or Gretna Green. In the area, there are excellent hotels owned by private enterprise, but their development is restricted because the Secretary of State will not confirm the full licences granted to them by the licensing courts.
The Government must accept that, in 1970, restricted table licences are no substitute for full hotel licences, because there can be no bar, no lounge service, and no opportunity for visitors to ask in friends for a drink unless they have meals. Anomalies are cropping up all over the place. Does the Secretary of State realise that members of the public, including tourists, are unable to get drinks anywhere on Sundays in Gretna Green because there is no hotel there with a full licence? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the public houses are not open on Sundays.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of people come over the border into England on Sundays for their drinks?

Mr. Monro: That may be so, and I am sorry if it is, because I am trying to interest people to come into Scotland to enjoy their day out. I would like to see them going to a good hotel which


has a full licence if they wish to have drinks.
It is no wonder that the residents of this area have been driven to despair because of this, and it probably explains the growth in the number of very fine social clubs. But they do not help the tourist, businessman or fisherman who comes to the area for a special purpose.
I want to turn to the position of such establishments as the Corner House Hotel in Annan and the Gretna Hall Hotel in Gretna. The latter has 50 bedrooms, which is more than can be mustered in all the State management district hotels. These two hotels have been awarded full hotel certificates by the local licensing courts, but they have been vetoed by the Secretary of State. Others, like Hunters Lodge at Gretna, would apply for full hotel certificates if there was any hope of obtaining them.
I do not criticise the service or staff of the State Management hotels. They do a good job. I criticise the lack of hotels with full hotel facilities, which is restricting development. It is clear that, as the State management district is unable to provide a sufficient number of new hotels, the Minister must relax his attitude to full hotel licences. The Secretary of State should avoid any possibility of giving the impression that State management is afraid of competition. He has power, under Section 82 of the 1959 Act, to do this. It is not only affecting the Gretna State management district, but it is holding back hotel development in Invergordon for the same reason.
How does the Secretary of State compare his decisions against the hotels that I have mentioned with the licence granted recently to a hotel south of Carlisle in a similar situation to Gretna on the M6? I am glad that that hotel has been awarded a licence, because the State management district offers no comparable facilities in the vicinity. A similar situation obtains in Gretna, because it is on the same road with roughly the same traffic, and the State management district does not provide full hotel facilities. In England, under the Home Secretary, a licence is awarded, but in Scotland it is not. The Secretary of State for Scotland should consider this matter very carefully indeed.
There has been a great deal of correspondence over the years, as the Minister knows, with the Corner House Hotel in Annan. I do not intend to go over the ground again, because both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Secretary of State are aware of the history of the matter. It is sufficient to say that I believe that Mr. Irving, the proprietor, has had less than justice. Indeed, I think that he should have been awarded his full hotel certificate in 1967 when comparable facilities with those that he was prepared to offer were not available anywhere else in Annan. Indeed, those facilities may not be available until 1972. I believe that if it was not for Mr. Irving's constant pressure there might not have been the new hotel project, to which I will come later or the improvements to the Queensberry Hotel.
In passing, it is worth mentioning that all the plans that Mr. Irving has presently in mind are eligible for a grant under the Development of Tourism Act, 1969, in which the Government have expressed the intention to help the development of hotels; but it is no use going ahead because the Secretary of State will veto his full licence.
I mentioned the Parliamentary Commissioner. In his report on the Corner House Hotel he put certain stress on the importance of the viability of the new hotel project that has been announced for Annan. The hotel will provide new accommodation, not extra accommodation. This is an important distinction. Everybody wants the new facilities and modern accommodation, but it must be understood that there will be six bedrooms less in Annan as a result of the building of the new hotel at a time when the whole area is asking for more accommodation. The ten bedrooms in the new hotel have to be balanced against the 16 that we shall lose in the Central Hotel that the State management district intends to sell. As that is to be sold presumably without a licence, I wish the State management luck in its endeavour to find a purchaser.
The new hotel announced in the autumn was to cost £200,000. Indeed, I believe that it is the view of the Secretary of State that this will be a viable project, which presumably means that it is expected to return 10 per cent. on its capital. We shall have to see about that in future.
The figure of £200,000 for ten bedrooms should be set against a figure of £500,000 for an hotel with 100 bedrooms at Aviemore. What worries me is that since then the cost has been reduced to £164,000. Bearing in mind that the cost of building is rising almost weekly, I assume that we shall get very much less than we expected last autumn. I hope that at the end of the day we shall see a building that is really worthy of the town.
Why has there been so little consultation with Annan Town Council? I know that I am really exaggerating, because in fact there has been no consultation at all. I know that the Gretna State Advisory Committee, of which I was once a member, has representatives on the town council, but I understand that they have not been there in a consultative sense in that they were to ask the town council for its views and take them back to the advisory committee and so to the Government. It is sad that such an important new project has not had the fullest discussion in a town in which it will be such an important addition. When so much public money is being spent, we must be sure that the hotel is right for the town and for the visitor.
Gracie's Banking had to go some time. In its vintage surroundings, and with a friendly staff, it has provided many of the things that are enjoyed in Annan. It has provided inexpensive lunches for the townsfolk and school children, and it is much appreciated by farmers, truck drivers, and others who attend the market. It has a bowling green, a quoiting rink—which is fairly unique—billiards, and, most important of all, a cinema. All these important items are to go—the Minister has confirmed that to me—and will not be replaced.
The cinema is an important issue, because I am assured that upwards of 1,000 people, both young and old, attend each week. I assure the Minister that there is no alternative. The proprietor of the other building says that he does not intend it to be a cinema again, which means that there will be no cinema in the area in future. I have asked the Minister before, and I ask him again, to see whether it is possible to include a cinema in this new project, because it would be very much appreciated in the town.
I welcome the development which will enhance Annan, but the lack of extra facilities—and I underline extra facilities —disappoints me, as does the lack of the cinema. Overall there is a very strong case for relaxing the Minister's attitude to the granting of full licences for the hotels in the area. I want to see developments in keeping with the potential increase in the tourist trade in the 'seventies as expressed frequently to the Minister and to the Scottish Tourist Board by the local authorities. I want, too, to see developments which will provide jobs in an area of high unemployment, and all this can be done at no extra cost to the Government.
The fact is that the Gretna State management district has outlived its original concept, and that the present policy is restraining great possibilities. I hope that the Minister will think again, consult local opinion, and realise that we are being denied a vital opportunity. I have tried to put forward this case constructively. I feel that the tourist trade will be hindered because of the present situation, and I hope that the Minister will try to relax the rules under the 1959 Act.

11.0 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), who has put his case reasonably. I know of his work on the Local Advisory Committee for Gretna, and—perhaps he was rather modest about this—of his work on behalf of his constituent who is involved in the case. I admire his moderation tonight.
I do not want to become involved in a theoretical discussion of the situation as it has developed since 1916. We all know the origins of State management, and we know that the conditions are no longer the same. But it is useful to remind ourselves just what State management is. It is a system for the supply of liquor to the public. We have always accepted that the supply of alcohol is a matter for public concern and public involvement. This is the basis of our licensing laws.
One of the great advantages of the State management district, is that there we have a management not so directly and financially concerned with profits and who are therefore much less likely to encourage undue drinking. That is the


whole principle of disinterested management, which seems simple and reasonable. Although the hon. Gentleman put his arguments about competition reasonably, there is still a case for this system.
I accept completely his arguments about the tourist potential of the South-West. This is why we have spent so much time in recent years—including the debates on the Development of Tourism Act last year—to encourage tourism in Scotland. What is called the " tourist explosion " has not gone unheeded by developers in the area. As part of a road development of the A74, a service station with hotel accommodation is being provided on the road near Gretna and the developers are doing so on the basis of the restricted hotel certificate which the hon. Gentleman did not like.
The system works something like this. With certain exceptions, no one except the State may sell or supply liquor in a State management district and the State management organisation makes the necessary arrangements for supply. The first exception concerns the hon. Gentleman. That is to say, where there is supply only to residents or to persons taking meals, the holder of a restricted hotel or restaurant certificate is entitled to supply liquor in a State management district. The other exception is that the Secretary of State can grant an authority to another person to supply liquor—a very wide discretion which is not frequently used in practice.
As we and successive Governments have seen, it would be contrary to the spirit of disinterested management for a private individual to sell for profit, and in such cases authority is granted only exceptionally. But there have been grants where the applicant can provide a type of facility which is desirable in the locality and which the State management cannot provide. This has been accepted and has not been changed by any Government since 1916.
Shortly before the 1964 election, the then Secretary of State, in a speech in Portobello Town Hall, of all places, announced the intention of the Unionist Party to abolish the system. I would not altogether blame the fate of the Unionist Party at that election solely on that announcement. At any rate, it was not implemented in 1964, for the reason we all know.
State management provides in the Gretna district five hotels, nine public houses and one off-sale shop. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that they were doing a good job. I agree with him, having been there to see the position. I appreciate his remarks about the position, including the Gracie's Banking site—I share something of his affection for it—but it would not be appropriate or possible to continue it. I accept that difficulties have arisen.
Gracie's Banking has reached the end of its useful life and one of the hotels is such that it cannot maintain modern standards. It is for this reason that State management is undertaking a redevelopment programme in Annan, involving the building of a new hotel at Gracie's Banking at an estimated cost of £164,000, and the closing of the Central Hotel. This should be started in the late summer and it is expected to be completed before the end of 1971.
We have closely costed this programme. Sometimes hon. Gentlemen opposite accuse us of extravagance and sometimes, as tonight, of meanness. At one moment they are telling us to spend more and at the next to spend less. We cannot win. However, in this case we are sure that this programme will make a useful contribution to the social facilities of Annan.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern at the disappearance of the cinema at Annan. It is Dart of the structure of which I have spoken and which must be demolished. I have considered this matter with great care and it is clear that economics make the possibility of replacing the cinema with another one on the site out of the question.
One of our problems is that while, on the one hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly telling us to save on expenditure, on the other they are always voicing the virtues of private enterprise and urging us to spend more by providing further social facilities. We are now being criticised because the cinema cannot continue and because of what is happening to Gracie's Banking. I wish that we could do, within our costing of the situation, what the hon. Gentleman wants us to do, but that is impossible, and I regret it.
I need not go into the history of the Corner House Hotel, the hon. Gentleman


having been in the centre of that history, so to speak. An application was made by Mr. Irving to supply liquor at the hotel, and from 1962 he was able to supply liquor to residents and diners. In 1964 he made application for a wider authority, part of his case being that he wished to extend his hotel and provide a functions hall but that he could not do so if able to sell liquor only under the circumstances appropriate to a restricted hotel certificate.
I will not attempt to describe the intervening stages, which were fully set out in a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner. Suffice it to say that the Secretary of State refused an application in August, 1967; that the Parliamentary Commissioner made a finding of mal-administration against my Department on the grounds of its submission of the case to him, criticising the setting out of the arguments; that the Department supplied the agreed remedy by making a fresh submission in the light of those criticisms; and that the Secretary of State confirmed his refusal.
The main criticism related to the admitted need for larger functions accommodation of good standard in Annan and the capacity of State Management to provide it. If it could, then it was in accordance with State management policy that it should provide it—and the accommodation is being provided in the new hotel at Gracie's Banking. We are, therefore fulfilling our rôle in this matter.
While I admire the tenacity and enterprise of Mr. Irving in pursuing his objectives, and the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter, it remains the case that the supply of liquor by a private individual is in conflict with disinterested management.

Mr. John Brewis: I regret that I was not in my place at the beginning of the debate. Is it a fact that while a grocer in Annan cannot get an off-licence to sell liquor, a grocer from a neighbouring town can pinch his trade? Is that fair?

Mr. Buchan: I cannot give an off-the-cuff answer to that question without first looking into it. I will examine the matter. I know about half the case. Whether the two halves gel, I am not sure.
The hon. Member referred to development in Invergordon. We see a case for the State management district to continue for the original reasons for which it was created, that is, to give a sense of involvement by the State in the provision of alcohol, which we do in one form by licensing and in this form created in 1916 by controlling the supply through the application of disinterested management.
The question is whether this alone is sufficient. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has had to say. I cannot say that he has shaken my belief in the State management district. As we all must, I pay continual regard to seeing that the needs of the area and the other area in the north are being met and being met in the right way. We accept this kind of duty and the State management district will have a fairly big rôle to play.
The hon. Member mentioned consultation. He knows more about the functioning of the advisory committees than I do, because for a long time he was an honoured member of such a committee. I want the local bodies to consult widely and not always formally. There is always a tendency for one organisation or other to believe that it should have been consulted. I cannot comment about this particular case, because I do not know what kind of soundings were made by the committee before advising us about its attitude to the project.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eleven minutes past Eleven o'clock.

Second Reading Committee

Wednesday, 29th April, 1970

[MR. JOHN ROBERTSON in the Chair]

The Committee consisted of the following Members:


Mr. John Robertson (in the Chair)


Bagier, Mr. Gordon A. T. (Sunderland, South)
Grieve, Mr. Percy (Solihull)




Houghton, Mr. Douglas (Sowerby)


Bell, Mr. Ronald (Buckinghamshire, South)
Hunter, Mr. Adam (Dunfermline Burghs)



Jenkin, Mr. Patrick (Wanstead and Woodford)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)



Brown, Mr. R. W. (Shoreditch and Finsbury)
Johnson, Mr. James (Kingston upon Hull, West)


Bullus, Wing Commander Sir Eric (Wembley, North)
Kirk, Mr. Peter (Saffron Walden)



Lyons, Mr. Edward (Bradford, East)


Cooke, Mr. Robert (Bristol, West)
MacColl, Mr. James (Widnes)


Dempsey, Mr. James (Coatbridge and Airdrie)
Maddan, Mr. Martin (Hove)



Mayhew, Mr. Christopher (Woolwich, East)


Evans, Mr. Ioan L. (Birmingham, Yardley)
Taverne, Mr. Dick (Financial Secretary to the Treasury)


Gower, Mr. Raymond (Barry)




Miss J. Beston, Committee Clerk.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL [Lords]

10.30 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: On a point of order, Mr. Robertson. I wish to raise a small technical point with you. There have been a number of changes in the membership of the Committee in the last few days and it is apparently impossible to get an up-to-date copy of the list of the membership. The Clerk has kindly let me have a list. The Vote Office says that a form will appear this morning, but by that time I expect that we shall have finished our business. Can you tell us how we can have an indication of who the members of the Committee are?

The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair, but I sympathise

with the hon. Member. I am afraid that we can do nothing about it this morning but I will convey his sentiments to the powers that be.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am most grateful.

10.32 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): I beg to move,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Friendly Societies Bill [Lords] be read a Second time.

I hope that the Bill will be regarded as useful. It has been welcomed in another place and by the bodies most intimately concerned. Its main purpose is to simplify


procedures for the merger of registered societies which may take place either on amalgamation or by transfer of engagements of one society to another. The other purpose is to simplify the procedures for the dissolution of registered societies. It also makes a number of other amendments to the Friendly Societies Act, 1896.

There has been a falling off in the number of members of the societies and an increase in management costs. This has led many smaller societies to be no longer economically viable units. As a result, some have found it difficult to continue operating, and it is expected that this tendency will increase. The obvious solution is for societies to amalgamate to form larger units.

Under the present procedure, contained in the 1896 Act, amalgamation, and transfer of engagements, involve a cumbersome process and disproportionate expense. The main obstacle is that a society at the moment has to get a positive expression of support for a merger proposal from at least five-sixths in value of its members and from everyone, whether a member or not, who is receiving or is entitled to receive any benefit from the society's funds. The term " value " in effect gives to each member a number of votes depending on the length of membership, which is an additional complication. The difficulties are greatly increased with the spread of membership of societies. In earlier days, they were usually confined to fairly small geographical areas or formed part of the life of fairly close-knit communities.

The requirements of the Act are obligatory, and a society which wants to merge with another has to go through the motions when, in practice, it knows perfectly well that it will not obtain the necessary consents. It will not fail to obtain the necessary consents because of active opposition, but because of the indifference of what need only be a small proportion of the total membership. Having gone through the process and failed to get the necessary consents the society can then apply to the Registrar to dispense with the consents, and this he may do with the approval of the Treasury. Thus, a society has to go through a time consuming, expensive and cumber-

some procedure which cannot be justified in present circumstances.

The Bill substitutes a simpler, less costly and speedier procedure. The main feature is that it requires that merger proposals should receive the support of three-quarters of the members who vote upon that proposal.

The Bill contains provisions to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to know what the proposals are and to express his view, and it safeguards the rights of any minority groups within a society. In addition, the procedures followed in every case will be controlled by the Registrar, and there are express rights of appeal to him.

The procedure for dissolution of a society, which is similar to that for mergers, is equally cumbersome and onerous. This also is made easier by the Bill, which substitutes in the case of friendly societies a three-quarters majority of members for the five-sixths which is now required. In this case, however, it still provides that three-quarters of the total membership must consent and the distinction from the case of mergers is justified on the ground that, in the case of an amalgamation or transfer of engagements, the obligations to the members carry on, whereas in the case of a dissolution the contract between the member and the society is in effect being broken, and this is considered to be something which should have clear and positive expression of support from a substantial majority of members.

The representative bodies of the friendly societies approve the proposals. They have been pressing for amendment of the law to bring it up to date. They submitted a memorandum some time ago to the Treasury, and at its annual meeting in September last year the National Conference of Friendly Societies passed a resolution calling on the Government to implement the remainder of the proposals contained in the 1964 memorandum which had not yet been implemented. The main proposals of the Bill arise from the memorandum. They have been discussed in detail by a working party made up of representatives of the movement and the Registry, and in addition the Bill contains a considerable number of minor amendments which are proposed to deal with practical difficulties brought to our


notice by representatives of the movement.

It is hoped that, in the near future, a consolidating Measure may be introduced to consolidate the Friendly Societies Acts from 1896 onwards. There are in the Bill a number of amendments designed to tidy up some of the imperfections which exist in the wording of these Acts, and there are also provisions to remove some dead wood. This will mean that the consolidating Bill, which is rather badly needed, can be more easily prepared when the time comes.

Clause 1 provides a new and simpler procedure for amalgamation of two or more societies or transfer of engagements and abolishes the present requirement for individual assents or consents from five-sixths of all the members. It substitutes a special resolution after full information about terms and proposals has been given. Clause 2 gives a right of appeal to the Registrar by persons affected.

Clause 3 repeals various provisions of the 1896 Act and also deals with the question of a dissolution. Clause 4 says in effect that the majority required for passing a special resolution is to be three-quarters of the members voting.

Clause 5 removes certain anomalies in the procedure in connection with the cancellation and suspension of registration of a society.

Clause 6 gives power to make regulations for the charging of fees, and Clause 7 contains, amongst other things, some provisions about group insurance which were pressed for by the annual conference last September.

I do not think that there is any special reason for mentioning the contents of the other Clauses and the Schedules. They are tidying up provisions. I hope I have explained the purpose and background of the Bill and that it commends itself to the Committee. If there are points to be answered I shall do my best, if I have permission to reply, to deal with them even if they may be somewhat intricate legal points, which seem to be threatened.

10.40 a.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Committee will be grateful to the Financial Secretary for the clear way in which he has explained the provisions. At the same

time, it would be right that we should not part with this Measure too hastily; it would be right to spend a few moments considering the nature of the bodies for which we are legislating.
We are legislating for a large number of societies which have a long and honourable history in the provision of a large variety of welfare benefits by a wide range of mutual subscription arrangements. These societies, one can rightly say, are woven into the skein of our social history. They had their origins in the local sick and burial clubs to provide the very poor with the resources to meet these inevitable hazards of life. They developed as mutual insurance societies to which millions of poor people subscribed for themselves and their families to cover, particularly, sickness, accident and death, and also to provide endowments and pensions for their old age. It has often been pointed out that the original Lloyd George national health insurance scheme was based on the experience of the friendly societies as they had developed throughout the nineteenth century. Indeed, the 1946 Act scheme itself can be traced back, in many of its features, to the workings of the friendly societies.
Inevitably, the nineteenth century, which saw a great growth in these societies, equally drew attention to the need for some measure of supervision to safeguard the rights of members and their interests, and to prevent scandals and abuses which, however small they may have been in number, nevertheless cast doubts on the validity of schemes of this sort. We therefore had a long succession of Acts, culminating in the Friendly Societies Act, 1896—and I can comfort the Financial Secretary by assuring him that one of the books I have with me is no more than a table of Statutes containing that Act. The 1896 Act is amended by the Bill in a way which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, has long been sought by the bodies representing the different kinds of friendly society.
In parenthesis, I would add that perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) will detect an echo of another piece of Victorian legislation on which he and I have recently been engaged, the Merchant Shipping Bill, It seems my fate to have


to assist in the task of exchanging nineteenth century crinolines for twentieth century miniskirts.
However, long and honourable as the history of the friendly societies may be, there is no dispute, as the Financial Secretary says, that they are now facing increasing problems. Indeed, only a few years after the 1896 Act itself was placed on the Statute Book the biggest challenge of all came when the foundations of the Welfare State began to be laid in the Lloyd George Act for national insurance. Since then, of course, competition has come from many quarters and has steadily eroded the rôle which the friendly societies have to play in our society. The development of National Insurance is only one element. The National Health Service has been another. The rapid growth of occupational pension schemes is increasingly providing for old age and retirement. The development of a large variety of savings media is another challenge. There has been a huge growth of home service insurance, known to lawyers as industrial insurance, and also life insurance, together, more recently, with unit trusts, investment trusts and all manner of savings media. These have all spread into the area which in the nineteenth century was almost the monopoly stamping ground of the friendly societies. Yet they survive, and continue to provide valuable benefits and services for their members.
I spent a little time yesterday looking through the annual reports of the Registrar. They make fascinating, if somewhat melancholy, reading: fascinating because of the huge variety of schemes, societies and benefits which exist to meet the needs of the people; and melancholy because year by year the Registrar has to report a slow, inexorable decline in their membership.
Let us take first the category of friendly societies classified by the Registrar as orders and branches. I am fascinated by the names of these societies which are now well known—the Independent Order of Rechabites, Salford Unity Friendly Society, the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, the Independent Order of Odd Fellows Manchester Unity Friendly Society, and so on. There were 34 of these societies with 6,986 branches in 1968. Since 1959 membership of this

group has declined by more than 30 per cent. The Registrar, in his report covering 1967, which is the latest year for which detailed figures are available, reported that
 the situation was that for every two memberships which ceased, one new member joined.
Thus adult members declined from 1,236,000 in 1958 to 914,000 in 1967, whereas juveniles showed an even bigger decrease, 193,000 in 1958 to only 113,000 in 1967.
The same story does not necessarily apply to the societies' funds, which showed a modest increase in this 10-year period, from £67·7 million to £75·3 million, but it will not have escaped the attention of Members of the Committee that that increase will hardly, if at all, have kept pace with the declining value of money in that period.
There are 765 centralised friendly societies, of which the best known is the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, and which include what is now called the Original Holloway Society, following the amalgamation of the Gloucester and West of England Holloway Society and the Stroud Holloway Original Society. Mr. Richard Holloway in the nineteenth century established the scheme whereby contributions increased annually from the age of 30 onwards so that the increasing demands made on the society by the elderly could be met year by year from the subscriptions which came in. In this group the membership in 1958 was 4·4 million adults. In 1967 it had fallen to 3·9 million. Juveniles declined from 284,000 to 154,000.
Yet, if we take the whole of the group for which we are legislating—the orders and branches, the centralised societies, and the other groups which cover working men's clubs, and so on—the total assets are still very substantial by any standard. The total assets of the collecting societies, perhaps the biggest group of all. at the end of 1968 amounted to £451 million; of the orders and branches and the centralised friendly societies, £312 million; and, of the registered working men's clubs, £25 million.
The Committee will appreciate that here we are dealing with a significant sector of the savings and insurance market, and it is, therefore, important that the


regulating legislation should fit the conditions of the 1970s. Yet in recent years voices have been raised questioning the continuing value of the friendly society movement. Four years ago the City Editor of the Sunday Telegraph wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph under the title, " Should the Friendly Societies survive? " I will quote only one paragraph from what Mr. Kenneth Fleet said:
 The friendly society movement is being strangled, slowly but surely. The question is whether any useful purpose is served not merely by saving its life but by giving it new zest and enabling it to grow.
I answer Mr. Fleet's question with a resounding " Yes ". It seems to me that not only should they survive but that they should be given every possible encouragement to survive.
Yet the only occasion when we have considered the friendly societies in any detail in the House of Commons for the last four years—the Financial Secretary may remember this, although he was at the Home Office at the time—was when the Government introduced legislation, in the Finance Act, 1966, to curb what seemed to be a promising new channel of growth for the friendly societies. They regarded the incursion of such bodies as M. arid G. Family Bonds as a tax avoidance device. One is bound to compare the swiftness with which Ministers stepped in to block what they regarded as an abuse of privileges, with the six years it has taken, from the time when the societies put their memoradum to the Treasury in 1964, to respond to the plea for changes in the law to make it easier for the societies to survive, to rationalise, to merge, to amalgamate or even to dissolve. It took six weeks to block a tax loophole; it has taken six years to provide the means of survival, and that is not a very happy record.
If I were asked to justify my resounding " Yes " in reply to Mr. Kenneth's Fleet's question I would give four reasons.
The societies, undoubtedly, are still meeting a widely felt, if changing, need. It is interesting to compare the kind of provision for which subscriptions are increasing to those, the majority, for which they are decreasing. On page 7 of the Registrar's latest annual report there is an interesting table showing the loss or gain of membership of different classes of society. The sickness benefit

societies all show a substantial decline over the nine years from 1959 to 1968. The deposit societies are down 23 per cent., the accumulating sickness benefit societies are down 25½ per cent., the death benefit societies are down 29 per cent., the pension societies are down 30 per cent., and so on. These are all matters which have been taken over by other forms of provision. But it is not unrelieved gloom. Institutional treatment societies are up 15 per cent. This means that people are recognising that there are still long queues to get into old people's homes, and that it is worth while to contribute a shilling or two a week during one's working life to a society which undertakes to look after one when one becomes old. The other group which has shown an increase is the endowment societies. Increasingly people feel that when they retire they should have behind them a cushion to protect them against the totally unforeseen disaster. My first argument is that there is a need which is still being met.
Secondly, from the national point of view, the societies perform a useful rôle in the support they give to the gilt-edged market, and make the Government's task of managing the market very much easier than it would be otherwise. The orders and branches invest almost 25 per cent. of their funds in Government, Government-guaranteed and local authority securities. The centralised societies, the Hearts of Oak and so on, invest 43 per cent. This, therefore, represents an important non-bank, long-term sector of the gilts market. This point was well made by Kenneth Fleet:
 I believe any organisation that encourages savings, let alone any organisation that has supported the gilt-edged market through thick and thin (mostly thin since 1945) ought not to be lightly abandoned.
I heartily agree.
Thirdly, the societies represent a socially valuable element of self-help and of mutual help to supplement and enrich the provisions of the Welfare State. For the more sophisticated people in our society there are many ways of insuring against the hazards of life, many avenues of investment and savings, but for those who fight shy of direct investment, and who lack the know-how to explore the insurance market, the friendly societies represent a valuable manifestation of a


wholly laudable ambition to make for the future provision over and above the basic level of provision in the State schemes, and, at the same time, they represent a uniquely worth-while form of mutual assistance in time of need.
I cannot do better than to quote a paragraph of a speech made by the Financial Secretary's predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot), in the debate on the 1966 Finance Bill:
… it still remains true in what I call genuine friendly societies and old-established societies that there still remains a relationship which enables the society to assist its members in cases of hardship and encourages members to look to it for advice, sympathy and practical help when they are in difficulties. Many of them still have distress funds and benevolent funds for cases of need or for the relief of widows or orphans."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 486.]
I emphasise that this is not a charity; it is self-help within the community, an element of real compassion, which, if it were to wither away and die, would leave the nation infinitely the poorer.
Those are the reasons for which I support the continuance and encouragement of friendly societies and very much welcome the Bill. I am sure the Committee will agree that the case made for the Bill by the Financial Secretary was a strong one, especially his case about the growing expense ratios which the societies are having to meet by amalgamations and mergers.
The Financial Secretary was, perhaps, a little shy in telling the Committee 'that one of the major elements of the increase in the expenses of the societies has been selective employment tax. The figures of management expenses of the collecting societies are given on page 12 in the latest report of the Industrial Insurance Commissioner. They are expressed as a percentage of premium income, including S.E.T. and excluding S.E.T. One has to bear in mind that the figures given were after only one increase of S.E.T. The second increase made last year has not been included.
For a big society like the Liverpool Victoria in 1968 the increase in expenses ratio was from 37·7 to 39·1, taking in S.E.T., an increase of nearly 1½ percentage points. The City of Glasgow figure is from 43·4 to 45·3, nearly 2 percentage

points. These increases are due entirely to the impact of S.E.T. on bodies whose only function is to channel people's savings into mutual and self-help benefit schemes.
The Registrar groups collecting societies into three groups: A includes the big ones, B the majority of the ones of substance, and C the large number of tiny collecting societies, where the expense ratio is the horrifying figure, excluding S.E.T., of 96·2, and including S.E.T., 96·4. S.E.T. does not press so hardly on the tiny ones, but these small societies cannot afford to go on with an expenses ratio amounting to more than 19s. in the pound of their premium income.
One interesting thing about the proposal which may well be made to exchange S.E.T. for value-added tax is that V.A.T. is not charged on any form of life insurance or mutual benefit scheme. All the experience on the Continent points to the desirability of eliminating life insurance from the tax. Insurance societies can, therefore, look forward to a change eliminating S.E.T. and substituting V.A.T. with a consequent reduction of their expenses in the form of taxation.
The Financial Secretary is right. The expense ratios are high, and the measures in the Bill will help small societies to merge and to overcome the disadvantages. The only pity is that they have had to wait so long for the changes which they have been seeking. Yet it would be churlish not to welcome the Bill now it is here. We welcome the provision for abolishing the procedural hurdles, for amending the law relating to special resolutions to ease the amalgamation of societies. We welcome the sensible arrangements to enable members and beneficiaries to complain if they feel that their interests are being prejudiced as a result of changes in the structure. We welcome the new provisions for group insurance business, in particular the amendment introduced in response to pressure from Lord Drumalbyn in another place to make the limits imposed by the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1966, apply separately to group insurance business, employers' pension schemes, and to other business. We also welcome the opportunity given by the Bill in its host of minor Amendments to provide for


consolidation of the law on friendly societies.
I have a number of questions to put to the Financial Secretary. The first refers to Clause 6 in which there is a proposal to charge fees to certain categories of society which hitherto have been exempt. The societies are entitled to know what level of fees the Government have in mind. Will there be consultations with the representative bodies before an order is introduced fixing the level of fees? What is the policy of the Government about the fee-raising power of the Registrar? Is it intended that the Registrar should become self-supporting, as the Government have recently decided that the Comptroller-General of Patents and the Patent Office should become self-supporting?
I would draw attention to the latest Supply Estimates, in which the Friendly Societies Registry is dealt with in Class X. That shows at present an Estimate of £213,000, with appropriations-in-aid reducing the figure by only £13,000, leaving a net total of £200,000 for the current financial year. By the time they include all overheads charged to other Estimates, there is another £100,000 to be added. To what extent do the Government intend to reduce the net Estimate by the increase in the fees payable for registration, and so on?
I should like to refer to what was said in another place when my noble Friend Lord Drumalbyn on 5th March asked the Government:
 What is the purpose of the fees. Is it to cover expenses of the Registrar in toto, or partly; or what is the purpose? 
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, in reply said:
 My Lords, I do not know their purpose. It may be a form of taxation; I do not know. Perhaps it is about time the Registrar's office obtained a little more money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 5th March, 1970; Vol. 308, c. 518–9.]
That was the only answer he received. I hope that the Financial Secretary, with his greater knowledge of Treasury matters than the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will be able to give a clearer answer today.
My second question relates to the limits established by the Eighth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1966. That relates to £500 for tax exempt life and endowment

business, £104 a year for annuity tax exempt business, £2,000 for life and endowment non-tax exempt business, £3,000 on mortgage protection, and £208 for tax exempt annuity business. These limits were fixed in 1966. Since then there have been four years of inflation, and money values have been substantially eroded. I am told that the equivalent today of £2,000 in purchasing power is £2,250, and the equivalent of £3,000 is £3,525. When one remembers that the latter is the mortgage protection figure and that the value of property has risen substantially faster than the cost of living, the figures are sadly out of date. The Registrar has power by that Schedule by order to increase the limit of non-tax exempt business, though it would need legislation to increase the tax exempt figure. Have the Government any proposals to increase these figures to help the societies to continue to do what they were intended to do in 1966?
My third question relates to Clause 11(6), by which the Bill is not to come into force on reaching the Statute Book but on a day appointed by the Treasury. The Treasury has taken power to appoint different dates for different purposes. What have the Government in mind on this matter?
Finally, as I have said, the Bill is a precursor to consolidating legislation. When can we expect consolidation of the Statutes to be brought forward? There are a number of other detailed points I could raise, but, no doubt, they can be explored in detail in Committee, when, I hope, the Government will be prepared to accept reasonable Amendments. I have not had as long as I would have liked to have had to study the Bill, since my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who is in hospital on the other side of the river, and who has vastly greater knowledge of this matter than I, was appointed to this Committee to deal with the Bill. However, I hope that what I have said will satisfy the Committee that I have had long enough to study the Bill's contents to recommend hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading.

11.6 a.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I should like to say a few words about the Bill. I represent a Scottish


constituency, and one of the largest Scottish friendly societies has written to me pointing out that it welcomes the Bill. It also provided an historical background to the friendly societies movement, but I will not go into it in detail since the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) has already given the Committee the historical picture.
It should be remembered that this movement stemmed from the working classes way back in the middle of the nineteenth century. It was originally set up to provide for burial and sickness benefits. These bodies were created by groups of working men to provide relief for members suffering hardship as a result of sickness, or to provide for dependants or widows. They were voluntary organisations, and the benefits, although small, assisted at a time when no provision was made by the State, and when paupers' funerals were quite common. As the Industrial Revolution proceeded the membership of these organisations increased. It then became necessary to establish a more elaborate organisation through which a man could travel from town to town in search of work without losing touch with the fund in which his contributions were deposited. Friendly societies became nationwide in their activities. Basically, they continued to cater principally for the artisan and labouring classes.
I have no experience of the administration of the friendly societies, but I have been a member of one in Scotland called the Rechabites, which was a temperance society. This society carried out an important function, and was a social organisation which provided entertainment and pastimes during a period when people did not have as much entertainment laid on as they do today. There were also youth sections in the society, and I am sure that many of the younger people were grateful for the work of the Rechabite movement at that time.
The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford mentioned a number of friendly societies, but omitted two. We had one entitled the Loyal Order of Ancient Shepherds and another called The Ancient Order of Free Gardeners, which I believe still exists. I remember my chums going down to the collector

of the Free Gardeners to pay their dues for the week. I was impressed by my visits, which are outstanding in my memory.
The friendly society movement has carried out an important function in the lives of working people over the past hundred years. I am sorry indeed to see a decline in their activities. The hon. Gentleman asked whether they should survive. I, personally, feel that they should survive.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Hear, hear.

Mr. Hunter: I feel that it will be difficult for them in future particularly because we have the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill whose provisions will be operative by 1972 and will make it more difficult for the friendly society movement.
I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend a question on Clause 4, which requires three-quarters of the membership to agree to any amalgamation or merger. I feel that, owing to the present apathy among members of the friendly society movement, that figure of three-quarters is far too large. I fear that it would be difficult to advertise and to get in touch with enough members to produce that figure in relation to an amalgamation or merger. I should like to see it reduced.

Mr. R. W. Brown: If my hon. Friend looks at Clause 4(1)(b), he will see that it says
…not less than three-quarters of the delegates who vote at the meeting.
Therefore, the number of persons who attend are delegates for the whole number. It is three-quarters of those voting. If that is the case, it would appear that my hon. Friend's fears are not well founded—as though there had to be three-quarters of the poll of the whole membership.

Mr. Hunter: I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that provision. I must have misread the Clause. I accept what he says, and I hope, therefore, that it will be possible to get three-quarters of the membership at the meeting.
I conclude by saying that Clause 7, which deals with group insurance, is an important provision for the friendly societies' movement and will give it added scope. I know that the assurance


societies feel that this is an important matter for them and I wish them success in this matter.
I welcome the Bill, and sincerely hope that it will reach the Statute Book.

11.14 a.m.

Mr. Taverne: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) for the welcome they have given to the Bill and the tributes they have paid the friendly societies. I was also grateful for the careful review given by the hon. Gentleman of the history of the friendly societies, which was appreciated by the Committee. We were also assisted by the background information provided by my hon. Friend.
There is one point about the history of recent legislation on which I should like to take the hon. Gentleman to task. I feel he was being a little unfair when he contrasted the six weeks it took to stop a loophole and the six years it took to implement the memorandum. This is not quite correct. Some tax avoidance was practised by a very small number of societies. This was corrected by the Finance Act, 1966, and that Act also extended the societies' powers of insurance. Again, there was the Friendly Societies Act, 1968, which modernised the provision about the keeping and auditing of accounts of societies. This was an important reform which was very much welcomed by the friendly societies. Therefore, while I do not wish to say that one would not have liked to have introduced this reform earlier, it is not true to say that nothing has been done to help them since the 1964 memorandum was first presented.
A number of questions have been put to me. I think that the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs was answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown). I am, therefore, left with a number of questions put by the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford.
The hon. Gentleman's first question related to Clause 6. I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what fees we have in mind, but the aim is that the level of fees will be brought roughly into

line with comparable fees paid by other societies, by which I mean the industrial and provident societies, building societies, and so on. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would give a clear undertaking to consult the representative bodies before any regulations on fees are made. The answer is, " Yes, we certainly will ".
The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was intended that the Registry should be self-supporting. The answer is " No ". It has never been the intention that the Registry should be self-supporting, and it is not the intention now, either. There always has been, and there will continue to be, a major element of public service involved, and the part which fees play in this is very small—indeed, only about one-tenth of the total costs.
The hon. Gentleman then asked about the raising of the limits for the taxable business under Clause 7. So far no representations have been made to the Registrar or to the Government about an increase in these limits, but we shall consider any representations made by the societies, and when they make them the question of raising the limit will arise.
Lastly, the hon. Gentleman asked about Clause 11, and why it was that there are provisions for different dates to be appointed for implementation of different parts of the Bill. It is necessary to provide for the commencement of the Bill in this way because there is in the Bill a mixture of provisions, some of which require the promulgation of regulations. Most of them will, in varying degrees, require a revision of registration practice which will need to be published in advance to the societies affected, but it is hoped that the main provisions of the Bill will be brought into operation on 1st January, 1970. I hope that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
I cannot help the hon. Gentleman about the date of consolidating legislation.
I hope that I have answered the specific questions put to me, except the last one, and that the Committee will confirm the opinion which it has expressed by welcoming the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That the Chairman do now report to the House that the Committee recommend that the Friendly Societies Bill [Lords] be read a Second time.

Mr. Taverne: Mr. Robertson, may I thank you for presiding over a very amicable discussion? It has been a pleasure for you to have sat there, for us to have had the minimum of interference, and for you to have had no difficulty in controlling the rude deliberations of this body. We much appreciate your presiding over our Committee.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Mr. Robertson, I endorse everything said by the Financial Secretary. In view of the point of order

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:


Robertson, Mr. John (Chairman)
Houghton, Mr.


Bagier, Mr.
Hunter, Mr. Adam


Bell, Mr. Ronald
Jenkin, Mr. Patrick


Brown, Sir E.
Johnson, Mr. James


Brown, Mr. R. W.
Lyons, Mr. Edward


Cooke, Mr. Robert
MacColl, Mr.


Evans, Mr. Ioan L.
Taverne, Mr.


Grieve, Mr.

which I raised at the beginning of our proceedings, I may now tell the Committee that within two minutes of my having raised it the list of Committee Members was put into my hand. I am most grateful. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I should like to thank hon. Members for the way they have made very pleasant the performance of my duty this morning.

Committee rose at nineteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.